Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Aircraft Production (Integration)

Mr. Harold Watkinson: asked the Minister of Supply what steps have been taken to integrate aircraft production in the United States of America and Great Britain.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): There is close consultation and regular exchange of information in this matter between the United Kingdom and the United States as well as other N.A.T.O. countries.

Mr. Watkinson: Would my right hon. Friend do all he can to increase his close consultation which he has just mentioned, because I believe it could be very much to the advantage of the re-armament programme of both countries if we could get closer integration in our manufacturing programme.

Mr. Sandys: There is a good deal already going on in this way. As the House knows, the Canberra bomber and also the Sapphire jet air engine are being produced in the United States under licence, and we are also producing here, under licence, a number of aircraft components and other items.

Mr. F. Beswick: Would the right hon. Gentleman see to it that in any integration which takes place this country is not again left specialising in military types of little or no civil value?

Mr. Sandys: That is just the point. It would be unwise for us to make ourselves entirely dependent on the United States for any particular item.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the production of air frames and jet engines is evenly balanced?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think they ever have been completely.

Brabazon Aircraft

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the future of the Brabazon aircraft.

Mr. Sandys: I am at present reviewing the aircraft programme as a whole. Meanwhile, I should prefer not to make any statement on particular projects.

Air Commodore Harvey: As a lot of public money has been spent on this project, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will make a decision at a very early date on this important matter?

Mr. Sandys: I hope to be able to make a statement quite soon.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does that mean before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Sandys: I should not like to commit myself until I have completed this review.

Atomic Scientists

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give a list of the atomic scientists who have disappeared since 1945, while in the employment of his Department.

Mr. Sandys: Professor Pontecorvo is the only atomic scientist who has disappeared while employed by the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister make sure that no other disappearances will take place?

Phosphor-Bronze (Draught- Excluders)

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Minister of Supply what restriction is proposed in the use of phosphor-bronze for the manufacture of draught-proofing equipment.

Mr. Sandys: The use of phosphor-bronze for this purpose, except under licence, is already prohibited under the


Copper and Zinc Prohibited Uses (Minister of Supply) Order, 1951.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that substantial supplies of this expensive metal are still being used in the manufacture of this luxury equipment? What is he doing to investigate the possibility of any abuse in this direction?

Mr. Sandys: I think it must be a case of old stocks being used up. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that is not the case, perhaps he would give me an opportunity to look into the causes of his complaint.

Sir William Darling: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this device is one of the best means of promoting fuel economy?

Electric Lamp Industry (Report)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Supply what action he is considering following the publication of the Monopolies Commission's Report on electric lamps.

Mr. George Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission contained in the Report on the supply of electric lamps.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) on 20th November.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that something like 42 million radio lamps are imported into this country? Is not this a sad state of things when we have firms like British Thomson-Houston and many others that are second to none in the world?

Mr. Sandys: I thought the hon. Gentleman was asking about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on electric lamps. The position there is that I have asked the manufacturers for their comments on the criticisms contained in the Report. I must await that reply before considering what action should be taken.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the sudden flight from the country of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has nothing to do with this?

Atomic Energy (Industrial Development)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in British national research stations with the problem of harnessing atomic energy for industrial, travel and other peaceful development purposes; and when it is likely to be available for use for such purposes.

Mr. Sandys: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the comfort which the use of atomic power for peaceful purposes would give to the general public, will the Minister consider issuing a schedule of its potentialities for peaceful purposes in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the reply to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT—it is fairly full and technical. If he wishes for further information, perhaps he will put down another Question.

Following is the answer:

Progress has been made in the detailed study of individual technological problems which must be solved before the construction of an experimental power reactor can be undertaken. The development of the supply of nuclear fuel and of the chemical separation processes connected with its production is proceeding satisfactorily. Facilities have been or are being established for the production of the rare metals which will probably be required. The first stages in the work on design studies of experimental reactors for marine propulsion are being concluded and further work will be undertaken. Studies are being made of other types of reactor.

There is a steadily increasing demand, both at home and abroad, for radioactive isotopes for use in industry, medicine and science, and improved facilities for production and distribution, and for training in their use, are being made available. More than 800 consignments are now being delivered each month.

The use of atomic energy for industrial power, or as a means of locomotion, is however still in a very early stage.

Disused Tramways, London (Scrap)

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make arrangements with the local authorities concerned to take up the disused tramway tracks in London in order that they may be used as scrap metal.

Mr. Sandys: Discussions are at present taking place between the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Transport and the local authorities on this matter.

Sir A. Hudson: Is my right hon. Friend likely to come to some conclusion soon, because I believe the local authorities are waiting for the Government on this very important matter?

Mr. Sandys: We are trying to expedite it as much as possible. Quite a lot of scrap steel could be obtained, amounting we expect to about 30,000 tons, and we recognise the importance of it.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: In view of the great financial difficulties of all the London local authorities in undertaking this work, is the right hon. Gentleman considering some form of financial help?

Mr. Sandys: That is just one of the questions which is under consideration, namely the financial cost. It is quite considerable.

Mr. Thomas Price: Is it not a fact that in other places where tramways have been discontinued it has usually been found that the cost of taking up the tram tracks exceeds the value of the steel that is recovered? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Manchester, for example.

Mr. Sandys: The cost is inevitably heavy, but tramway lines have been recovered from 10 provincial cities, and the possibility of recovering such tracks from other places is being examined. The cost is heavy, but we must also take into consideration the cost of road repairs in doing away with the tramways.

Engineering Exports

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will give an assurance that the markets for engineering products, built up over the last six years, and now exposed to German and Japanese competition, will not be jeopardised by the re-armament programme.

Mr. Sandys: Every effort is made to place defence contracts in such a way as to cause the least possible interference with exports.

Steel Supplies (Government Departments)

Mr. J. Slater: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the M-Form system in the allocation of steel supplies to the various Government Departments is still in force.

Mr. Sandys: The M-form system is at present used only for sheet steel and tinplate. Under an Order which I made last week a similar scheme will be introduced next February for other forms of steel.

Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been much criticism regarding that form of allocation, and does he agree that it is adequate to offset any form of abuse that may be introduced?

Mr. Sandys: I am not saying that it is absolutely watertight. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the industry was thoroughly consulted in the matter and, on balance, came to the conclusion that this was the best scheme that could be produced in the circumstances.

R.A.F. Shirts (Italian Orders)

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: asked the Minister of Supply why £240,000 worth of Royal Air Force shirts have recently been ordered from Italy; and why this order was not placed in Northern Ireland where there is unemployment at present in the shirt manufacturing industry.

Mr. Sandys: I am told that last June, wben these orders were placed, the material position was such that the order could not have been fulfilled in Northern Ireland in the time stipulated.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that so long as there is unemployment in this industry in any part of the United Kingdom he will see that orders of this kind are placed here at home where work is wanted?

Mr. Sandys: I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that last week I had a talk with Mr. McCleery, the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland, and


gave him precisely that assurance, that we should do everything we could to place orders which were suitable in Northern Ireland to take up the unemployment which existed in that part of the country.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: While endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask him if that has not in fact always been the case, that where orders have been able to be executed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have placed them there and nowhere else?

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The difficult unemployment situation did not exist to the same extent at the time when these orders were placed.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend make certain that these are not "black shirts" washed or dyed?

New Cars (Waiting List)

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Supply if he will take powers to ensure that people whose names have been on a waiting list many years have priority in the delivery of new cars.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Miss Burton: In view of the widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country on this matter, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the racket, which is perfectly legal, by which car dealers take cars from customers at around two-years old, and therefore outside the covenant, and sell them at twice the listed price, and so are able to make that profit plus the profit of a new car, and that that means that people on the normal waiting list have just no chance at all of their priority?

Mr. Sandys: It is a very difficult problem, but I do not think it is one which the Government can tackle. During the war, when there were comparatively few private cars being produced, it was possible to control the priorities for those cars. We now have to deal with about 80,000 cars a year. It is quite beyond the organisation that we could manage to set up—we should not be justified in setting up a larger one—to try to decide who should and who should not buy these cars.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Cannot my right hon. Friend consider the policy of releasing in the next few months a larger number of cars to the home market so that dealers can see what is the real position of the waiting list and remove many of those who have their names down for two or three different cars?

Mr. Sandys: We should very much like to increase the number of cars available to the home market, but we have to bear in mind the importance of the export trade at this moment.

Miss Burton: I appreciate that it is beyond the powers of the present Government to deal with this, but will the right hon. Gentleman do something to ensure that ordinary people do get the priorities to which they are entitled?

Mr. Sandys: As I explained to the hon. Lady last week, the industry are doing their best to ensure that specially urgent categories of people, such as doctors, district nurses, and midwives, do receive priority. If there should be other categories of people for whom it is urgent and important to have new cars, I am quite prepared to make representations to the industry to see that they get special attention.

Steel Ingots and Castings (Outputs)

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply the total anticipated output of steel ingots and castings for the year 1951, compared with the total of 16.29 million tons in 1950; and what is the total anticipated production figure of steel ingots and castings for 1952.

Mr. Sandys: The estimated output of steel ingots and castings for 1951 is approximately 15¾ million ingot tons. The estimate for 1952, based on present raw material supply prospects, is 15¾ to 16 million ingot tons.

Mr. Nabarro: In consideration of the shortage of finished steel during 1952 that the Government have estimated at 1½ million tons, can my right hon. Friend tell the House by what amount that figure will be abated by American imports and, secondly, by the diminution of steel users in this country arising from steel rationing due for inauguration on 4th February.

Mr. Sandys: We hope—it is only an estimate, but we hope—that by some increase of output and some increase of imports the gap may be narrowed from 1½ million tons to one million.

Copper and Zinc (Lock Trade)

Mr. S. N. Evans: asked the Minister of Supply what consultations he had with representatives of the lock trade, centred in Willenhall, Wednesfield and Wolverhampton, before deciding to prohibit the use of copper and zinc in the making of lock furniture.

Mr. Sandys: I am informed that there were no consultations with representatives of the lock industry on this matter. I understand that the integral parts of locks and latches should have been exempted from the prohibition. The necessary amendment to the Order will be made without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Pensions (Age Qualification)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of National Insurance if, in view of the fact that the average duration of the life of man is shorter than the average duration of the life of woman, he will take steps to ensure that men shall be paid their old age or retiring pension at an age no later in life than the age at which the old age or retiring pension is paid to women.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): An alteration of this kind would involve major changes in the financial structure of the National Insurance Scheme, and I cannot undertake to consider it at the present time.

Mr. Hector Hughes: But if the poor old man is to die first, why should he get his pension last? In view of this undoubted biological superiority of women, will the Minister do something for the poor old men?

Mr. Peake: The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that we have to legislate for the rule and not for the exception; and let me assure him that none of us has noticed any diminution in his intellectual powers since he reached the age of 60.

Benefits

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of National Insurance the total benefit payable to a workman, with a wife and two children, who is unable to work through injury sustained at his place of employment; and if he will state what benefit may be obtained from the National Assistance Board in such a case.

Mr. Peake: If the man's disability is sufficiently serious and lasts a long time he could, including family allowances, get £3 18s. 6d. a week for 26 weeks and thereafter £5 4s. 6d. a week. To this latter sum constant attendance allowance up to £1, or exceptionally up to £2, might be added. Whether anything would be payable by way of assistance would depend on the rent paid, the ages of the children and other circumstances.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a case of a man who, during 26 weeks, was paid only £3 17s. a week, which is quite inadequate for a man who has to keep a wife and two children?

Mr. Peake: If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will send me particulars of it.

National Assistance (Statistics)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many people were in receipt of public assistance at the latest available date.

Mr. Peake: At the end of October, 1,431,000 persons were receiving regular weekly grants of National Assistance, which took into account, where necessary, the needs of the recipient's wife and any other dependants.

Old Age Pensions (Review)

Mr. Charles Grey: asked the Minister of National Insurance when he proposes to review the position of old age pensioners; and what form the review will take.

Mr. Peake: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12th November, 1951, by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).

Mr. Grey: Will the Minister compare the answer he has just given with what was put out in the Conservative Party's election manifesto?

Mr. Peake: I would inform the hon. Gentleman that the question of pensions affects a great many other Departments besides my own, and that, so far as my own Department is concerned, the new rates, which were introduced in last summer's Bill, have been operating for only a few weeks.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the proposed review has started, or whether it is going to wait for the quinquennium?

Mr. Peake: I think that my hon. Friend, if he is referring to the review mentioned by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, had better put down his question to that Department.

Sir I. Fraser: That is the question that I put down.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is nothing in the Question about the rates of pensions, and that there are a great many other questions that could be reviewed besides the rates of pay, such as conditions of retirement, which is becoming, in these times of shortage of manpower, an important subject.

Non-Contributory Pensions

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that the National Assistance Board's form for claiming a non-contributory old age pension from the age of 70 is obscure in its wording and causes difficulty to many would-be claimants; and if he will take steps to have it amended.

Mr. Peake: The actual claim form can hardly be simplified. It only requires the claimant to state his name, address, date of birth and whether he has previously applied for a pension or assistance. As regards the explanatory leaflet attached to the form, I do not think it would be possible to explain the provisions of the Act with which it deals any more simply.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Would my right hon. Friend look again at the explanatory memorandum, particularly

paragraph 4, which is very difficult to understand and upon which many complaints have been made to me?

Mr. Peake: I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would explain in greater detail what difficulty he had in understanding this form.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend will understand that I am not asking this Question on behalf of myself.

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is now in a position to increase pensions given to those pensioners who are in receipt of only 10s. per week.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. These pensions were carried over from the old scheme and have no counterpart in the modern National Insurance arrangements. For most of the people concerned other and more appropriate provision is already made in the National Insurance Acts. If there are any who have no resources beyond their 10s. pension they should apply to the National Assistance Board for assistance.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that something like half a million men and women are in receipt of this pension, people who during their working life were unable to make any contribution to a National Insurance scheme, and that 10s. a week does not go very far in these days?

Mr. Peake: This amount is only part of the transitional arrangements and, so far as the 10s. per week old age pensioners are concerned, they will all have qualified for the higher rate by 1953.

Winter Clothing

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of National Insurance what is the practice of the National Assistance Board with regard to the provision of warm clothing, especially for old people, in the winter.

Mr. Peake: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Board's statement on pages 14 and 15 of their annual Report for 1949.

Sir I. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend see whether he cannot extend this scheme—this method of help—as it is a sensible one and gives good value for money?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will, of course, know that any initiative in this matter rests not with me but with the Board. He may also like to know that last year 132,000 exceptional need grants, mostly for clothing, were made by the Board, averaging nearly £4 a piece.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLIES

Retail Price

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to secure a uniform retail price for domestic coal throughout the country.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): No, Sir, this would not be practicable.

Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that in the South of England people pay 20s. to 30s. a ton more than people in the Midlands and North of England, and, since this is a nationalised industry, cannot some arrangement be made for pooling freightage charges in order to get a more uniform price for coal?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I am afraid that this is another matter in which one-half of the country thinks differently from the other half.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the price paid per ton for what is known as concessionary coal?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different question.

Mr. Donnelly: Will the Minister bear in mind that the whole question of a flat-rate for transport is much wider than just the distribution of coal, and will he give an assurance that the one question will not be raised without consideration of the whole matter?

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the shortage of domestic fuel in the City of Aberdeen; and if, in view of the special requirements there during the winter period, he will substantially increase the allocation and supplies of coal to that city.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer

I gave to the hon. Members for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 12th November.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister bear in mind that 527 miles north of London the climate is very much colder than it is in his office?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but unfortunately there is not enough coal to give anybody any more, even in the north of the Kingdom.

Coke Oven Plants (Ownership)

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many coke oven and by-product plants are under public ownership; and how many are under private enterprise.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: There are 76 coke oven plants in operation under public ownership and nine under private enterprise. All of them, except two of the former, have by-product plants.

Suffolk Coastal Area

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, having regard to the severity of the weather on the north Suffolk coast during the winter months, he will bring that area into the northern allocation for fuel for the winter period.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that the acute shortage of house coal will not permit an increase in supplies in any area.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister not aware that the Lowestoft Division is the most easterly division of the country, the prevailing winds are easterly, coming right off the North Sea, and the zoning is most unfair in respect of this area which is subjected to these bitter winds, and that people in the north and particularly in the north-west, which has a milder temperature, have the benefit of the northern allocation? Will he have another look at this problem?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the prevailing winds have changed since I succeeded the right hon. Gentleman.

Brigadier R. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that there is an even stronger case for the Norfolk coast, and that the present line must be unfair, because it assumes that the climate of north-eastern Norfolk is the same as Torquay and Bournemouth?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the difficulties, but unfortunately there is at present not enough coal.

Coke, East Midlands

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that there is a local shortage of coke in the East Midlands, and that it results in hardship to the occupants of council houses fitted in the interests of fuel economy with grates that only burn coke or only coke and anthracite; and what steps he proposes to take to provide supplies in such cases.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I find that the coke and boiler fuel situation has become very serious over the past year and the prospects for the winter are bad.
I am immediately going into the question of whether anything can be done to meet the difficulty mentioned by the hon. and learned Member, but I must warn the House that it would be a matter of immense practical difficulty to provide a remedy.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that one of the difficulties is that no one in his Department or in the Gas Board seems to know where the council houses are which are fitted with coke burning apparatus, and, as they have been put in for the purpose of fuel economy, will he take steps to ascertain from councils the number of houses of this kind and then make some special provision for the inhabitants who cannot use coal in this apparatus?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but the fact remains that consumers have been encouraged to install this special coke-burning apparatus but no arrangements have been made to ascertain where these special stoves have been installed in particular houses. At the beginning of the winter it is immensely difficult administratively to find that out in time.

Compensation Payments

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has now been made with regard to the payment of compensation to shareholders in coal-mining companies following

nationalisation; and when it is anticipated that such payments will be completed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Up to the present, capital compensation has been met in cash or Treasury Stock, to a total of £126,407,371. It is not possible to estimate with any exactitude when valuations will be completed and final payments made.

Mr. Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend do anything to speed up the payment of this compensation?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a most complicated matter; indeed, in certain instances guidance has to be sought from the courts.

Output

Mr. E. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power by what amount he expects the production of deep mined coal in 1951 to exceed that of 1945.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: By about 36 million tons.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that that speaks volumes for the success of the nationalisation of the mines, and would he not agree that it is a great credit to the miners? Will he see that those figures are publicised in Tory papers in every constituency in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: I only wish that the total increase had been much greater. When we congratulate ourselves as a country upon that, we must also remember that even at the present figure it is still 30 million tons below what it was in 1937.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the estimated output of opencast coal for the year ending December, 1951; and the targets for 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Production of opencast coal this year will be about 11 million tons. As regards 1952 and 1953, the policy of the Government is to win as much opencast coal as is practicable, having regard to the availability of sites and plant.

Mr. Jeger: Are we to understand from the Minister that there will be no alteration whatever in the policy in regard to opencast coal production laid down by the previous Government?

Mr. Lloyd: In the present situation we must have as much opencast coal as possible, but we shall pay careful regard to amenity.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: In getting opencast coal, do we not very often destroy good agricultural land in order to send that coal abroad and bring back products which we can grow ourselves?

Mr. Thomas Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have recently spoken to farmers in my constituency whose land was turned up for opencast coal, and that they have informed me that the land is in better shape now than it was before?

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: Can we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will take great care not to encroach unduly on good agricultural land?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but I think the House appreciates the acute crisis in coal production. We never do anything of this kind without close consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Underground Gasification Experiments

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the recent report published by the American Department of the Interior with regard to the experiment in underground gasification of coal conducted jointly by the Bureau of Mines and the Alabama Power Company at Gorgas, Alabama, of which a copy has been sent to him, in which gas produced by burning coal underground was found suitable for driving turbines and generating steam; what liaison there is between his Department and the American Bureau of Mines on this subject; and how far the results of the experiment conducted in this country confirm the American findings.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. We are in close touch with the U.S. Bureau of Mines about underground gasification, and as a result of an invitation from the Bureau and the Alabama Power Company a scientist of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has been working with the team at Gorgas for the last 2½ years.
Allowing for differences in technique and the nature of the coal seams, the conclusions from the work in this country are in agreement with those in the United States that the gas produced could be used for driving gas turbines and generating steam.
We have, however, not got far enough to decide whether the process would be economic.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state the anticipated duration of the underground gasification of coal experiments being conducted at Bayton, Worcestershire; on what costing basis the contractors employed by his Department are operating; how far periodical examination and interim scrutiny of costs is to be undertaken by his Department; whether the gasification measures to date are deemed successful; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: It is expected that two coal seams will be ignited at Bayton early in 1952, but I cannot forecast how long this phase of the experiment will last.
It is not customary to disclose the basis of an individual contract place by a Government Department.
While I am not prepared to make a statement at present, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Thomas Hawksley Lecture of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, delivered this month, a copy of which I am sending him, which includes a statement of the experimental work undertaken in this country.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the Minister be prepared in connection with this contract to answer a fundamental point—are the contractors conducting the experiment on a cost plus basis and what degree of control over the cost is being exercised by his Department?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different Question, but I shall inquire into it.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that underground gasification of coal has been a great success in the Donetz Basin for the last 15 or 16 years, and would it not be advisable to send out to the Soviet Union some of our experts in this particular field in order to see the progress made there?

Mr. Lloyd: I believe it is a fact that considerable work has been done on the subject in the Soviet Union. I am not aware myself whether that works is definitely on an economic basis, but I will inquire into it.

Exports

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal is being exported; and what proportion of total exports is opencast coal.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: During the first 10 months of this year 6,287,000 tons of coal have been exported, of which approximately 3 per cent. has been opencast coal.

Coke Stocks

Mr. Robson Brown: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the stocks of coke at coke ovens at gas works and at merchants' depôts on October, 1950, and October, 1951.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Stocks of coke at the end of October, in the years 1950 and 1951, respectively, were as follows: at coke ovens, 253,000 and 82,000 tons; at gas works, 931,000 and 395,000 tons; in merchants' yards, 143,000 and 93,000 tons.

Mr. Robson Brown: Having regard to the serious drop in the stock position throughout the country, will the Minister consider expediting his carbonisation programme?

Mr. Lloyd: We shall do all we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (LOAD SHEDDING)

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to reduce load shedding.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In the circumstances facing us this winter it is economy in the use of electricity during the peak hours that can help most to minimise load shedding. The greatest practicable step that can be taken in this direction is the organisation of systematic load spreading by large industrial and commercial undertakings and I am glad to say that the regional boards for industry are making arrangements for these con-

sumers to reduce their peak hour demands by at least 20 per cent. Domestic and small industrial consumers can also help very much by economy at peak hours and the area boards and special local committees are asking them to do their best also.

Mr. Erroll: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very exceptional difficulties existing in north-west England in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will bring them to my attention, I will certainly do so.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that some regional boards have a load spread of a good deal more than 20 per cent. and the prospects are, therefore, correspondingly improved?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. There has been very good co-operation indeed in this most important operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD (CONVICTION)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of the criticisms made by the Lord Chief Justice at the Leeds Assizes concerning the inaccuracy of an answer given to a Parliamentary Question, if he will make a statement and say what action he proposes to take.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been drawn to the comments of the Lord Chief Justice regarding the inaccuracy of certain information given in this House; what inquiries he has made in the matter; and what action he has taken to ensure that information given to this House by his Department is accurate.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am in the unusual position of replying in respect of a Parliamentary answer given in a previous Parliament by another Minister of a different Government and party.
The answer in question was given on 4th December, 1950. I have carefully examined the records, and I wish to say at once that in my opinion not the slightest question arises of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), not having exercised all


the usual care in giving information to this House.
The Question was in three parts. First, it asked the amount of the licence granted for the extension of the Yorkshire Electricity Board's Headquarters; secondly, the date of such licence; and thirdly, the amount which had, I quote,
been actually spent or the value of the work done to date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 22.]
The information for the first two parts of the Question was available in his Department and was stated correctly in the reply. The information asked for in the third part of the Question relating to the amount which had "been actually spent or the value of the work done to date" was not available in his Department and had to be obtained from the Yorkshire Electricity Board. My predecessor prefaced his reply to this third part of the Question with the words, "I am informed that." He was of course referring to the information obtained by his Department from the Yorkshire Electricity Board. The information given by the Board to his Department was incorrect and that is why the answer was incorrect.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that a Minister was responsible, does the answer of my right hon. Friend mean that no disciplinary action is going to be taken against a Minister of this House, who insulted this House by giving an answer which was described by the Lord Chief Justice of England as a "downright lie," and will my right hon. Friend refer the whole matter to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. If I may say so, that question does not arise at all. It often happens that information has to be obtained from outside bodies, whether private companies, public companies or the nationalised boards, as the basis of information given in this House, and it is usual in those circumstances for the Minister to use the phrase, "I am informed that." As a matter of fact, I do not think that in general any difficulty arises in relying on this information.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman say explicity whether the answer given in this House came from the Board itself or was suggested to the Board by an officer of his Department,

as seems to be the case in viewing the evidence at the trial?

Mr. Lloyd: I think I know to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring. There was a statement made, I think, by some witnesses that they understood the answer had been suggested in London. What happened was that the original information was asked for by the Department. On the later instructions of an assistant secretary, the principal, whose business it was, was instructed to check the answer with the Yorkshire Electricity Board. I think that it was from that that the suggestion arose somewhere during the trial that the answer had been suggested in London.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: Is it not a fact that when an hon. Member of this House puts down a Question he must make himself responsible for the facts in his Question, and is it not all the more necessary that a Minister should make sure of the facts in an answer?

Wing Commander Bullus: Has disciplinary action been taken against the official who gave the inaccurate information?

Mr. Lloyd: Later on I am answering a Question about the Board, and I think that will arise better then.

Mr. Donnelly: Is it in order for the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) to make an accusation against my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker).

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is plain that if blame rests on anybody in respect of this Question it rests fully and wholly on me. May I say that I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that I took all reasonable care to obtain information which was accurate, and that I believed it to be fully accurate when I transmitted it to the House?

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, with a view to the restoration of public confidence in the affairs of the Yorkshire Electricity Board, he will dismiss the chairman and deputy-chairman forthwith and at the same time announce the names


of the new chairman and deputy-chairman; and if he will take early steps to replace the existing board.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I propose to terminate the appointment of Colonel Lapper, the Chairman of the Yorkshire Electricity Board. Mr.Newey, the Deputy-Chairman, has tendered his resignation and is carrying on until I can make such new appointments as I may consider necessary. The part-time members of the board have asked to see me, and I do not propose to make any statement until I have seen them.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Lord Chief Justice of England at Leeds Assizes on 12th November last that the information provided for a Ministerial answer to this honourable House was a "downright lie"; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances in which this answer came to be given to the House.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has already inquired carefully into the circumstances and has explained the position fully to the House this afternoon. I do not myself think that further inquiries are necessary.

Mr. Marlowe: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has made a statement which rightly acquits the former Minister of Fuel and Power, and, of course, the House readily accepts that finding, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable public disturbance at the appearance, from the trial, that the answer was concocted somewhere between the Ministry and the Board and that there will continue to be public disturbance unless the matter is fully investigated and the facts are made known to the public?

The Prime Minister: The matter has been very fully investigated and a great many facts have been very fully made known to the public, and I am of the opinion that the matter may rest where it is.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not the case that the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power left con-

siderable obscurity as to how the original answer came to be given, and, as it is a very serious matter that this House should have been misled by an answer, will my right hon. Friend make further investigations?

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order. As the charge of the Lord Chief Justice concerning an answer given in this House contained the statement that it was a "downright lie," would it be right for you, Mr. Speaker, to send the Lord Chief Justice the reply which has now been given so that he too may have the facts that we now accept?

The Prime Minister: I must say that there are an awful lot of things to inquire into in this country at this time, and I think this one has had a pretty good and thorough investigation. I need scarcely say that I entirely associate myself with what my right hon. Friend has said today, that in giving his answer the former Minister acted in the perfect good faith that we always associate with his character.

Mr. E. Shinwell: While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to hold an inquiry, is there not something to be said for acquainting the Lord Chief Justice with the facts of the situation as a result of the investigation which has taken place and in view of his statement that a Ministerial answer given in this House was a "downright lie "?

Mr. J. Hudson: May I have an answer to my point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: As to the point of order, which was a sudden one to me, the full answer given today by the Minister of Fuel and Power will, of course, be reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT and it is perfectly easy to bring it to the notice of the Lord Chief Justice or any other member of the public or any Member of either House.

Lord John Hope: Surely there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). There is no question of the Lord Chief Justice having said that a "lie" was told in this House, but that is what the hon. Member suggested. The Lord Chief Justice said not that the lie had been told inside this House but that it was in the Department, and that is the point. It


ought not to go out that the Lord Chief Jusice said what the hon. Member has suggested.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The Lord Chief Justice did say that.

Mr. Speaker: For my part, I do not recollect exactly what the Lord Chief Justice said, but all the facts have been made public in so far as they have been today and the whole thing has been disclosed and is on the record, and I do not think that any action by me is called for.

Mr. T. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Before we dispose of the question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, further to the point on which you have given your Ruling, if a copy of the transcript of all the evidence could be placed in the Library so that at least the hon. Members of this House may be clear in their minds about what took place? May I ask the Prime Minister if he will do that?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter not for me but for the Minister.

Mr. Marlowe: As there is confusion about the matter and it is necessary to make it clear that a "downright lie" was told not by the Minister who is said to have told it but by someone else. I shall raise the matter on another occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (BUILDING LICENCES)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the aggregate sum of money represented by current licences issued by his Department for building work by the British Electricity Authority for headquarters, offices, administrative centres, and showrooms; what check is maintained by his Department to assure the terms and money limit of each such licence is strictly complied with; and what further action he now proposes to take to regulate such matters, in view of the occurrences at Scarcroft at the Yorkshire Electricity Board headquarters.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am informed that the authorisations issued covering work of this nature amounted to £262,537 during the financial year 1951–52, and £769,307 in the previous year. The Department does not possess a staff of architects and accountants duplicating those

employed by electricity boards, such as would be necessary to check all work in progress. I am considering what alterations in the present system are required.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend realise that private industry is subject to a very close degree of control in this matter? Would it not be propitious for the nationalised industries to relinquish their favoured and privileged position, which has led to the scandalous revelations at Scarcroft?

Mr. Lioyd: I have made inquiries into this matter. I am bound to say that the procedure adopted by the Ministry of Works does not appear to differ from the practice adopted in my Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED BOARDS (FINES)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will introduce legislation to surcharge members in nationalised boards in respect of fines imposed on such boards in a corporate capacity.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the recent electricity board case has shown, it is possible, under the existing law, to take proceedings against members of boards who have a personal responsibility, and the courts can impose, if they so decide, not only fines but also sentences of imprisonment. As at present advised, therefore, I do not consider further legislation is necessary.

Wing Commander Bullus: Would not the Minister agree that it would be fantastic that a highly paid official appointed to watch public expenditure should have his fine paid for him by the public against whom he has offended?

Mr. Lioyd: I do not think it would be an accurate description of what took place. The court in this case, having discretion, nevertheless decided to impose, for certain reasons mentioned by the Lord Chief Justice, a fine on the board in its corporate capacity, and decided to impose in one case a fine and in the other case a sentence of imprisonment on individuals, in their individual capacities.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Does the position of a director of a nationalised board differ in any way from that of the director of a private company?

Mr. Lioyd: That is a legal matter on which I should not like to pronounce at short notice.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether a fine imposed upon a corporate body is actually paid for by the consumer? How does he define a corporate body?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF EDUCATION (STATUS)

Mr. Edward Short: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the relevance of our educational system to the economic problems of the nation, he will reconsider his decision not to include the Minister of Education in the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this point in the Debate on the Address on 6th November.

Mr. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his reply will have given great disappointment to the teachers of this country, who number about a quarter of a million, because they regard this omission as a slight on the education service and as a slight on their efforts to raise the natural genius and talent of this nation to its highest possible level?

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (U.K. DELEGATION)

Mr. Frederick Lee: asked the Prime Minister the duties of the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe.

The Prime Minister: The duties of the head of the United Kingdom delegation at the forthcoming meeting of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe will be the same as at the previous meetings. He will seek to ensure that the activities of the United Kingdom delegation further the work of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Lee: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, am I to take it that his announcement that there is a nominal head of the delegation implies that there will be no effort to bring the members of the various parties together to try to co-ordinate their policy in private as distinct from discussion in the public assembly?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter I might leave to our representatives.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Has it not been the practice in the past for there to be a leader of the Labour members of the delegation and a leader of the Conservative members? Is it not a new development, and did the right hon. Gentleman himself when at Strasbourg follow the leadership in this sense of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), or of myself when I succeeded him?

The Prime Minister: I confined myself to the duties of the head of the delegation. I did not attempt to enter upon the question of how far those duties had been discharged by previous representatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister to which Minister Questions relating to the Central Office of Information and to the British Broadcasting Corporation's policy should be addressed.

The Prime Minister: Questions relating to the Central Office of Information should be addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Those relating to the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation should be addressed to the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the Prime Minister departing from the practice of allowing policy in respect of broadcasting to be dealt with by a senior Minister and only technical matters by the Post Office?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The main issues in regard to the policies of His Majesty's Government towards the British Broadcasting Corporation will naturally be dealt with as a Cabinet matter.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am not quite clear about that. Do I understand that detailed Questions on administration will be answered by the Assistant Postmaster-General, but that if there is some major question of policy which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, has been the subject of Cabinet consideration, the Question should be put down to himself or the Leader of the House?

The Prime Minister: I entirely share that view.

Mr. John Profumo: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the name of the Minister who will be responsible for the information services.

The Prime Minister: It does not seem necessary to nominate a single Minister to be answerable to this House for information services as a whole. Questions relating to the information activities of a particular Department should be addressed to the Minister in charge of that Department; and Questions relating to the Central Office of Information may be addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Profumo: Do I understand from the Prime Minister's reply that it is not his intention to appoint a special Minister to be in charge of the policy with regard to the information services in general?

The Prime Minister: I said, "It does not seem necessary to nominate a single Minister to be answerable to this House for information services as a whole."

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PERSONNEL, AUSTRIA

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister the total British personnel, civilian and service, employed in Austria; and how many of the latter are officers and other ranks, respectively.

The Prime Minister: I am told that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the size of our forces in Austria. The number of British civilians, including Foreign Office staff, is about 180.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into the undue proportion of officers to other ranks and the great waste now taking place in Austria?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend has any relevant information on the subject, perhaps he will send it to me.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it should not be in the public interest to know how many of our Forces are stationed in Austria? [Laughter.] Well,

we are not at war. What possible damage can be done to the public interest at this moment merely by our knowing how many officers and men we have stationed in Austria?

The Prime Minister: I have endeavoured so far as possible to follow the practice which I found in operation when I assumed my special duties.

Mr. Silverman: That does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from changing it.

The Prime Minister: I certainly should not be deterred from changing it, but I can well suppose that those who carried out the policy before felt that it was perhaps not desirable to give the exact locations and numbers of all our troops in the different parts of the Continent of Europe. If we begin by saying how many there are in one part, simple subtraction enables the actual truth to be much more precisely defined.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. CHARTER

Mr. Profumo: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to the renewal of the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government hope to make a statement this week.

Sir W. Smithers: Before renewing the Charter, will my right hon. Friend set up an independent committee presided over by a prominent K.C. to inquire into the subversive activities within the B.B.C.?

The Prime Minister: That question might be better asked after the general answer has been given in both Houses on Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIBET (COMMUNIST CONTROL)

Mr. Edward Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has regarding the extent of Chinese Communist control of Tibet; and whether he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): His Majesty's Government have no representative in Tibet and, therefore, no direct source of information about events in that country. I have, however, seen Press reports which indicate that China is increasingly asserting control over Tibet, and I have no reason to doubt that these reports are substantially true.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIP'S OFFICER (TRIAL, BRINDISI)

Captain Robert Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a British subject named Peter Ridgwell, second officer of the s.s. "Charles Dickens," has now been detained in prison in Brindisi for five months awaiting trial for manslaughter; and whether he will inquire into the cause of the delay and when a trial may be expected.

Mr. Nutting: Mr. Ridgwell and another officer of the s.s. "Charles Dickens" became involved in a fight with the Chief Engineer while the ship was in the port of Brindisi last June. The Chief Engineer died as a result, and Mr. Ridgwell and the other officer are being held on a charge of manslaughter.
I am informed that the delay which has occurred in bringing these men to trial is due partly to the Court's summer recess and partly to the fact that the Court has requested certain evidence from the widow of the deceased. Once this evidence has been received, the hearing of the case will take place with little further delay. If Mr. Ridgwell is convicted, the time, of course, that he has spent in prison pending the trial will be deducted from any term of imprisonment to which he may be sentenced.

Captain Ryder: Does not my hon. Friend think that this has been a very long delay, and will he use his offices to make sure that the evidence that is required is speedily produced?

Mr. Nutting: We are certainly using our offices to ensure that the evidence required is speedily produced, and we have instructed His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Bari to see that no further delay takes place once this evidence is available.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Under what court is this trial being considered? Is it an Italian court?

Mr. Nutting: It is in an Italian court, because the Director of Public Prosecutions in this country considered that he had no case on which to act.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister anticipate the result of this trial by saying that the time these men have spent in prison will be taken into consideration when they are sentenced?

Mr. Nutting: I merely said that if Mr. Ridgwell is convicted, the time that he has spent in prison will, of course, be deducted from any sentence.

Mr. Hynd: That is the point. I heard what the Minister said, and I still ask: How can he anticipate what the judge will do with regard to the time that these men have spent in prison?

Captain Ryder: May I ask, further, that my hon. Friend will make sure that this officer is adequately defended?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. We have taken steps to ensure that one of the best known criminal lawyers in that part of Italy has been retained for his defence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings in Committee on Japanese Treaty of Peace [Money] and Home Guard [Money] and the Proceedings on or relating to the Festival Pleasure Gardens Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — JAPANESE TREATY OF PEACE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House knows, the Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed at San Francisco by representatives of the late Government on 8th September; and this Bill is a consequential matter which will, I hope, commend itself to the House. Before I say anything more about the Bill, however, I should like to revert briefly to the Japanese Peace Treaty itself.
The House will recall that the draft of the Treaty, in substantially the same terms as the Instrument signed at San Francisco, was published as a White Paper on 12th July, and was discussed in general terms by the House on 25th July. During that discussion, certain hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed anxiety lest so liberal a treaty might expose this country's trade to damaging competition from Japan.
The prosperity of British industry must always be one of the principal concerns of any Government, and, indeed, of the House, but I am sure that whatever may be the merits of trying to protect this country's industries against unfair and injurious competition, a treaty of peace is emphatically not the means which we should seek to use. It is impossible, even if it were desirable, to attempt, so to speak, to write our own Customs regulations into an international agreement, negotiated and signed by a number of different States, and to expect them to be accepted.
Fifty-four States at war with Japan were consulted during the preparation of this Treaty, and in expressing their own views His Majesty's Government took careful note of the requirements and needs of the Colonies. None of these States was in a position to dictate the terms of the commercial articles of the Peace Treaty. In fact, the terms represent, as indeed, do the terms of all multilateral treaties, the maximum distance which all the participants were prepared to go in any particular direction.
In a multilateral treaty of this kind, therefore, it would have been quite impossible, even had the Government at that time wished to do so, for them successfully to insist upon the inclusion in the Treaty of provisions which restricted Japanese industry or production. Indeed, even if it could have been agreed to insert restrictive provisions of this character, the Allied Powers would have had no means of enforcing their observance by an independent and sovereign Japan.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) dealt with all this in the debate last July, and, if my memory serves me correctly, the House as a whole seemed ready to accept his explanation. I think, therefore, that I can fairly say that the draft Peace Treaty appeared then to be generally acceptable to the majority on both sides of the House, despite those inevitable omissions and imperfections to which I have referred.
I believe that that general feeling still continues, and as far as this side of the House is concerned, at any rate, we support the Treaty as the best treaty we were likely to achieve in the circumstances; and we welcomed its signature at San Francisco as enabling us, in the words used last July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to resume our historically close association with the Japanese people. As the record of the Japanese Peace Conference at San Franciso shows, this spirit also animated the 47 other Allied States, including 11 Asiatic countries, which signed the Peace Treaty on 8th September.
The Treaty of Peace with Japan will not come into force until it has been ratified by Japan and by the majority of the States which were principally concerned with the negotiations. These States are Australia, Canada, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Japan has now ratified the Treaty, and I understand that she intends to deposit an Instrument of Ratification in the very near future.
As forecast in the Gracious Speech, His Majesty's Government have presented the text of the Treaty to the House before ratification. As the House is aware, the only constitutional requirement for ratification is that the text of the Treaty must


first be laid before the House for 21 Sitting days. The White Paper containing the text of the Japanese Treaty will have been before the House for this period on 6th December.
I understand that while it is the usual practice to allow time for a debate before ratifying an important treaty, this is not a strict constitutional requirement, but if, as I understand, Mr. Speaker, discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill will be allowed by you to range widely over the Peace Treaty as a whole, and provided, of course, that the House is prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill, the Government will regard this discussion as having afforded proper Parliamentary opportunity for debating the Treaty prior to its ratification by the Government.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I want to get the constitutional or Parliamentary doctrine clear. I am speaking from memory, but this is deeply embedded in my mind, although I am open to correction. I have it clearly in mind that, starting with one of the early minority Labour Governments I think it was conceded that a Treaty should lay upon the Table—this is a very important Treaty whether one agrees with it or not—and if by the Opposition, or by a substantial wish in the House, there were a desire to challenge it, argue about it, or have it discussed, the Government of the day would provide facilities for that to be done. Thereafter, the ratification would take place. If there is no such demand within a certain number of days—40 or whatever it may be—of course the Government are free to ratify it.
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not challenging the right of Parliament to challenge or debate a treaty, if Parliament is so minded, before the expiry of a certain number of days. I know it is happening now, but, by the doctrine he was enunciating, I thought the hon. Gentleman was challenging that doctrine.

Mr. Nutting: I am sorry that there is some confusion in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison: I thought there was some confusion in the mind of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nutting: No, I do not think so. The Treaty has been lying on the Table for some considerable time and the necessary period which the constitution requires that it shall lie on the Table will have expired on 6th December. Although this Bill is a narrow Measure, and only deals with narrow points, I understood from inquiries I made that you, Mr. Speaker, would permit a general discussion and a fairly wide discussion to take place upon the Japanese Peace Treaty as a whole in order that the House should have full and proper opportunity today to express its view upon the Treaty and to debate the issue as well as the narrow issues contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: This Bill, as I read it, provides machinery for carrying out the Treaty, if it is entered into, and I think it would be in order, therefore, to discuss the merits of the Treaty in general as arguments for showing whether this machinery is really necessary and approved by the House. I had, therefore, proposed to allow the discussion on this subject to be wide.

Mr. Morrison: That is agreeable to me, Sir, and I thank you for the understanding Ruling you have given, but I am not on this particular Treaty only. I only want to be sure that what I have conceived to be the traditional rights of the House for some years past are not being challenged by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nutting: I offer in no way a challenge to the rights and privileges which the right hon. Gentleman has at heart and I hope that the explanation I have now given and the Ruling you have given, Mr. Speaker, will satisfy the House that this occasion, this afternoon, will present adequate opportunity for debating the Treaty as a whole.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that His Majesty's Government attach very considerable importance to ratifying the Japanese Peace Treaty and thereby fulfilling their part in bringing it into effect. I think the House will agree that it would be not only unjust, but definitely contrary to our political and commercial interests, to leave Japan as an occupied State. It is of the greatest importance to this country that we should resume direct diplomatic and commercial relations with the Japanese Government


at the earliest possible opportunity. Since the end of hostilities in 1945 the political situation in the Far East has been distorted by the necessary occupation of Japan.
I believe that the restoration of Japan to the community of nations will help to stabilise conditions in that unsettled part of the world and assist the establishment of more normal international relations in Asia. In consequence, therefore, it is important that, when the Japanese Peace Treaty comes into force, His Majesty's Government should be able both to carry out their obligations under the Treaty and its accompanying Protocol and also to make use of the rights the Treaty confers upon them.
This brings me to the Bill before the House. As the House is no doubt aware this Bill is the child of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That it became a foundling left on the Foreign Office doorstep for us to adopt is due to the fact that there was no Parliamentary opportunity for the party opposite to bring it forward after they had signed the Treaty of Peace. I make no complaint about that, but, as the new foster father, I am warning right hon. Gentlemen opposite that I shall look to them for help in protecting the child against the murderous intentions of those full-blooded Pharaohs, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and Central (Dr. Stross).
The passage of this Bill through Parliament is essential if we are to resume normal commercial relations with Japan because, until we have cleared up—as it is the purpose of the Bill to give power to clear up—all the tangled mass of claims and contracts arising from the existence of a state of war between Britain and Japan, a resumption of normal relations between the two countries will be delayed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: An important constitutional point arises here which, I think, it is necessary to clear up now. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the acceptance, or ratification, of the Peace Treaty is a Royal Prerogative and that that prerogative cannot be used unless Parliament provides that machinery? Therefore, in order to get that machinery, this Bill must be passed and, if it is not passed, the Royal Prerogative cannot be used?

Mr. Nutting: If I may say so, that is a technical point, but a technical point of great importance. Constitutionally, I am advised that it is not essential for this Bill to pass through Parliament in order that the Government might ratify the Peace Treaty. Constitutionally, that is not a strict requirement.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: For the King to ratify the Treaty?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, for the King to ratify it. Naturally, if the Bill were defeated, His Majesty's Government would regard its defeat as an attack upon the Peace Treaty as a whole and it is for that reason, among others, that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may ratify the Peace Treaty and that, by doing so, we may resume normal commercial and political relations directly with the Japanese Government and people.
While it is possible to indicate to the House, in a general way, the kind of subjects connected with the Peace Treaty which require legislative provisions, it is not at present possible to state precisely what provisions will actually be necessary. Hon. Members may recall that a similar situation arose when the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Bill, to implement the Peace Treaties with those countries, was considered and approved in 1947. The present Bill follows the precedent of that Statute.
The Bill is an enabling Measure which, in the words of Clause (1), confers upon His Majesty the power to
make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to Him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty and Protocol, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.
Perhaps I might here give the House some examples of the action which may be required under the Bill to enable His Majesty's Government to carry out their obligations under the Peace Treaty and its accompanying Protocol. Sections A to D of the Protocol prescribe rules in accordance with which contracts, periods of prescription, negotiable instruments and insurance and re-insurance contracts affected by the war shall be regulated both in Japan and in the United Kingdom.


In order to provide for the implementation of these rules in this country it will be necessary to give them legal effect by Order in Council.
There is also the exercise of the rights acquired by this country under the Peace Treaty and the Protocol. In connection with these, action under the present Bill will be necessary to implement Article 14 of the Peace Treaty, which, as hon. Members will recall, entitles His Majesty's Government
to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property rights and interests of Japan and Japanese nationals
situated in this country. Such property is subject to control under Trading with the Enemy legislation in this country, in accordance with which it has been preserved in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace. To enable His Majesty's Government to take over this property and to dispose of it will require legislative provisions by Orders in Council.
Article 15 of the Peace Treaty provides for the restoration of British property situated in Japan which had been taken over or otherwise controlled by the Japanese Government. It may be necessary to set up machinery to take full advantage of this right. This also may necessitate action of one or another of the kinds contemplated in Clause 1 of the Bill from which I have already quoted. Apart from the economic and financial provisions to which I have referred, there is little in the Japanese Peace Treaty and its accompanying Protocol which directly involves Parliamentary legislation. Most of the obligations in the Treaty, as the House is aware, are imposed upon Japan, and they are political and social, as well as economic in character. Such obligations of this kind as devolve upon the Allied Powers do not, I am advised, require legislation to implement them.
As I have already said, I very much hope that we are still generally agreed upon the necessity and desirability of a Treaty of Peace with Japan; and I trust we shall be equally of one mind upon the importance of our being in a position fully to resume relations with Japan in accordance with the Peace Treaty as soon as that instrument comes into effect.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I imagine that this will be no surprise to the House, in view of the fact that the Treaty was negotiated by the late Government, and was signed at San Francisco on behalf of His Majesty by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), the British Ambassador in Washington and by myself.
So far as this Bill is concerned as you, Mr. Speaker, said, it is really a Bill to provide machinery; and so far as I am aware, no controversy arises on the rather small-scale machinery which is required to carry out this Treaty, if it is ratified. I do not therefore propose to take up the time of the House in discussing any details of the Bill itself, but I am aware that there have been many misgivings of different kinds expressed about the nature of this Treaty, misgivings which are shown, at any rate in one manifestation, in the Motion for the rejection of the Bill which is on the Order Paper in the name of several of my hon. Friends.
Since I was so closely concerned with this Treaty at any rate in its latter stage, I should like to be allowed to attempt to put the matter in perspective as I see it. The House will agree that at the present time there is no more troubled area in the world than the Far East, and any settlement in that area involves several major elements. There are at least three major Powers actually there—the Soviet Union, China and Japan—and other major Powers, including ourselves and the United States, have traditional and quite legitimate interests in the area.
In the post-war period events in China have been so spectacular, and Japan, in the meantime, has been so much in eclipse, that I think the immense importance of Japan in Asia and the Far East has tended to be overlooked, particularly in this country. Recent events in 1950 and this year in the Far East seem, unfortunately, likely to postpone a settlement of the relationship of the new China with her neighbours and ourselves. But to suggest that, until all these very difficult matters are solved, the relations of Japan with the outside world should, or even can, remain static, is gravely to under-estimate the importance of Japan


in the Far East; and the danger of holding up for very much longer her return to international society.
Quite apart from recent events in the Far East, the basic problem of peace settlement with Japan was bound to be intrinsically very difficult. I suppose that no country has had a more remarkable history over the last 100 years than has Japan. She emerged from feudal isolation to become a very great industrial and trading Power, with interests all over the world. She has, so far, been the only Asian State able to rival the West in technology and production. Her population has risen in the last 20 years by very nearly 20 million people. To support that population the Japanese islands, like the British Isles with their heavy population, require access to raw materials and markets in many places outside the islands themselves.
There was a slight chance that Japan would achieve access to those raw materials and markets without disturbing the peace of the world. There was what I might call a rather brief liberal interlude in her history. But that passed, and as things turned out, Japanese expansion, under the fanatical leadership of militarism, and in the interests of a rapacious industrial and commercial system, took the path of conquest and war, with the results and sufferings to Asia, the Commonwealth and the United States, about which we all know.
These events have inevitably left a legacy of bitterness which is not yet dead. Therefore, the problem of the victors when Japan was defeated was how to prevent a resurgence of the forces responsible for these events while enabling the teeming millions of skilled and industrious people in Japan to earn their living; and also—and this is important—to make their contribution to the advancement of living standards in Asia and other parts of the world.
The Potsdam declaration on Japan, in 1945, envisaged an occupation which was to last—and here I am briefly paraphrasing the provisions—until those who had allowed Japan to embark on world conquest had been eliminated from positions of power in the State; until her war-making power had been destroyed and until democratic tendencies had been established. Thereafter, I think it fair

to say, it was envisaged that she should make a full return to international status.
How far the democratisation of a defeated country from outside is possible at all is very much open to doubt, particularly if the occupying Power is a country with Western traditions operating in a country with traditions so very different. Moreover, any occupying Power faces this dilemma. It is the duty of an occupying Power on the one hand to encourage democratic and peaceful elements in the occupied country; and yet if it compels those elements to operate for any prolonged period under the direction and control of an alien master, by that very act it undermines their authority; weakens their chances of survival and, therefore, opens the way to a revival of extremism. That is a problem in the occupation of a defeated country after every war.
By 1947 it was the general view of the British Commonwealth that the time had come for a change. The occupation Forces had initiated many sound reforms; land distribution, trade union reform and constitutional and social legislation of various kinds. It was believed at that time that these very tender plants would have the best chance of taking root under native Japanese auspices, and not for any long period under the authority of an occupying Power. Accordingly, during 1948, 1949 and 1950 the Commonwealth countries have been working on the draft of a peace treaty.
We reached agreement on many points, notably on the impossibility of basing our future relations with Japan on treaty provisions restricting her ability to earn her living. That was stated as being the policy of the Labour Government by Sir Stafford Cripps as early as 1946, and I do not think that the intention of the party has ever wavered from that view. That does not mean that we have not got very grave misgivings about the revival of Japanese pre-war competition, based on some of the practices in which the Japanese indulged before the war, but we have to face the fact, particularly, that restrictions on Japanese production would most certainly have been opposed by a majority of the countries at war with Japan, and particularly the whole of the Asian countries with backward economies, who were looking to Japan to make


a contribution through her low cost production to the betterment of their conditions.

Mr. S. Silverman: My right hon. Friend says that such conditions would have been opposed by countries who had been at war with Japan, including those of Asia. Of course, the principle one was China, who was never consulted at all.

Mr. Younger: It is quite correct that the Chinese were never consulted, but I think that all the south Asian countries or, at any rate, the majority of them, were agreed, and India above all others—[An HON. MEMBER: "India has not signed the Treaty."] Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to complete my sentence. India, above all others, has been most insistent upon having a liberal treaty in the economic sense, with no restrictions on Japanese ability to produce and sell abroad.
The second point we had to face was this, and it was dealt with by the Joint Under-Secretary in his speech. Even if there had been some restrictive clauses introduced into the Treaty, as I do not believe was practicable, there would have been intensive feeling against it after the end of the occupation and after Japan had become sovereign. I think it is true to say that the great majority of the practices in which Japan indulged before the war were practices which, at that time, were breaches of Japan's obligations, but it was not found possible to enforce those obligations.
I think there is general agreement that these matters could not have been dealt with in the Peace Treaty. The object at which we aimed was that Japan should voluntarily undertake international obligations, and some provision is made for that in the declaration attached to the Treaty, that we should encourage whatever can be done to improve labour standards and conditions of work in Japan, and that all of us should try to prevent a return of slump conditions all over the world, for that was the real thing which caused Japanese competition to be so deadly to all the rest of the countries before the war.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether such protection is to be found within this Treaty? We are all agreed with the sentiments of the right hon.

Gentleman, but the Treaty itself is absolutely devoid of any such suggestion.

Mr. Younger: Obviously, the Treaty did not contain a safeguard as to what Japan shall voluntarily do after she regains sovereignty, but if my hon. Friend wants to see what is in the Treaty about this, if he looks at the preamble and also at the declaration which is attached to the Treaty, he will find that there is considerable attention to such matters as could properly be dealt with at that time.
I want to leave other aspects of the very important economic and trading side of these provisions for the moment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) will be dealing with them at greater length later in the debate. I want to say that, this generally liberal conception of the Treaty having been agreed, I am quite certain that we were right to avoid putting into the Treaty minor pin-pricks whose only result would have been to cause resentment for very little effect.
On this there was full agreement with the United States, the Commonwealth and, once again, especially with India. It was this support which led us to forgo anything but token reparations. If we had tried to get, and had succeeded in getting, something more than that into the Treaty, it could have ruined Japan's chance of reconstruction but could not possibly have compensated the countries concerned for the loss they have suffered.
There was an exceptional case of compensation for those who had been prisoner of war in Japan, and there was agreement that something should be included on this point in Article 16. This agreement was obtained only because of the very special nature of the case, because of the enormity of the treatment which ex-prisoners of war had received, and also because of the grave implication of appearing to let such matters go by more or less unnoticed.
I believe that this Article was welcomed by ex-prisoners of war in this country, and I would like to thank the Far Eastern Prisoners of War Asociation, which led the campaign for a provision of this kind, for the realistic and responsible way in which they conducted their campaign. I should add that they were ably assisted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth).
Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt wish to express their views about this. but my impression was that the Association was gratified that we were able to secure the establishment of the principle to which they attached such importance. but they did realise that although there might be argument about the exact sum. no really large sum could be obtained.
Commonwealth policy on this Treaty had been crystallising throughout the period from 1947 to 1950, and, as the months went by, we became more and more convinced that the situation was deteriorating in Japan, while there was a desire to have more scope for our representatives, diplomatic and commercial, and those of other nations, than had proved to be possible during the occupation. The long delay in these years was due, in part, to United States indecision on certain aspects of the Peace Treaty, but I do not think we should forget that it was also due to procedural intransigence of the Soviet Union.
As elsewhere, we waited long in the hope that there might be some agreement before deciding that we must go ahead ourselves. I believe that the territorial and military provisions of the Treaty might have been settled broadly on the lines of the Potsdam Declaration, and that the disposal of Formosa and other difficult topics could have been settled without any complications if all this had been terminated before the Korean war and before the deadlock arose over affairs in China, but, of course, these events have given new importance to the security problem.
Whatever might have been the case before, I believe that there is no responsible person in the country who could now readily accept a treaty which left Japan a military vacuum after the end of the occupation. The Treaty proposal is that Japan should have the same rights of defence as other members of the United Nations, and it would have been difficult to deny such rights once we have decided that Japan was to become sovereign.
Outside the Treaty, it is known and has now been published that there was the intention that there should be, more or less simultaneously, a mutual security pact with the United States which would involve certain rights for the United States in the way of bases and facilities

in Japan, and the supply of some contribution towards the defence of Japan by United States Forces.
Those who think that an arrangement of this kind is wrong have, I think, the responsibility of suggesting some better way of achieving two objectives, which are separate but are really linked together. The first is the objective of preventing the rebuilding of Japanese forces for the purpose of aggression, and the second one is that of the adequate defence of Japan against aggression.
On the first one, I think that the continued interest in Japan and in this area of the Pacific by the United States is absolutely essential, and, certainly, Australia and New Zealand take that view. There is, indeed, no other Power available on whom we could rely to ensure this, and nobody would suggest that the United Kingdom should be prepared to take on great extra commitments for that purpose in that area.
On the second point, if Japan, despite this limitation, is, nevertheless, to be defended, it is hard to see how that can be more appropriately done than by some form of joint United States-Japanese arrangements, which would fit in with the idea of the three-Power Pacific pact between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Of course, those who wish to see United States influence entirely eliminated from Japan and from the whole of the Far East will oppose this course, and, indeed, this is what the Soviet Union has done; but, frankly, I cannot see that this is either a United Kingdom or general Commonwealth interest. If, therefore, the occupation is to come to an end, as I think it must, I believe that this is the best available arrangement to succeed it.
I have tried to put before the House some considerations which, following the three or four years of intensive work on this subject, seemed to point to the importance first, of an early treaty, second, the need for one with liberal economic provisions, and, third, the acceptance of a United States-Japanese security arrangement. I believe that the case, as I have put it, is a reasonably sound one, but there still remains the formidable question whether the events of 1950 in China and the Far East, the deadlock over the recognition of the Central People's Government of China, followed


by the aggression in North Korea and Chinese participation in it, should have led us, in the late stages of our work, to go into reverse, or at least to stand still and cease the pressure for a treaty on which we had worked for three years, and require, instead, a delay until all the Chinese issues were cleared up.
This, I think, is the most anxious issue of all those connected with the Treaty. It faced the Allies with the choice of very unhappy alternatives. I am sure that nobody would seek to deny that a treaty without China, without the Soviet Union, and, as it turned out, without India, is something that would be very much less than we had hoped for throughout these years of work. I should like to make it quite clear that the non-participation of India was based to a very large extent on quite different grounds from the non-participation of the Soviet Union. There was, indeed, very wide agreement with India on the question of a really liberal treaty, though she was unwilling to participate without China.
I want to put this point very squarely and to show how the situation presented itself at the time. I have said that there was this long delay between 1947 and 1950 in getting on with the preparations for the Treaty. When discussions really began in earnest in order to work out the Treaty in September and October, 1950, China was not yet in the Korean war, and, as I said during the foreign affairs debate last week, there was, at any rate, in New York, where I was at the time, a strong hope that there would be a settlement of the question of Chinese representation long before we should reach the point of signing a Japanese Peace Treaty.
At the opening of the General Assembly in September, the matter was raised and a committee was appointed, at the instigation of the Canadian Government, with the object of putting this matter, so to speak, in cold storage, until certain things had happened, particularly the passage of certain Elections. From the way in which sentiment was moving in the General Assembly, it seemed likely that, by Christmas, 1950, there would be a majority for a settlement satisfactory to us. Therefore, at that time, I felt that we were quite right to renew the consultations with the Powers principally concerned, and particularly

with the Russians, who were consulted at that time.
If hon. Members cast their minds back to that period, they will recollect that the situation in respect of the Supreme Command in Japan was not in any case such as to make us wish unduly to prolong that institution. It was not until later that Chinese intervention and the persistent refusal of the Chinese Communists to enter into discussions, even with the Indians and other Asian States, right up to the summer of this year, made the settlement of the representation of China appear very much more remote.
In the meantime, there had been many and varied consultations both inside the Commonwealth and outside, and it became clear that a very wide measure of agreement could be obtained from the vast majority of the countries concerned. This, of course, in turn, had its effect inside Japan. There, too, there was impatience for a treaty. Expectations had been raised and the country was becoming mentally prepared for the end of the occupation. I believe that an indefinite postponement of the Treaty at that stage, especially if it were known to be due to the fact that we were waiting only for the participation of a Government which was engaged at that time in aggression in Korea, could not have failed to have very serious effects in Japan.
I attach weight to this, not because of any particular tenderness for Japanese feelings in the matter, but because I am convinced that realism demands that we now treat Japan as a nation which is again going to be important, and that it will not pay us to behave towards her as though we thought her problems could afford to wait until we had squared up every other trouble with every other Power, including some which have given us very little encouragement to date to expect early agreement. I am not saying that a delay of a few months would not have been acceptable, but could anyone envisage that there would be a Chinese settlement within so short a period? I wish I could. I could not at the time, and I am sorry to say I cannot today.
There is the further consideration that, even if that issue were out of the way, it is rather doubtful what prospect of early agreement we should have once we got round a table. Throughout this time the Soviet Union had not offered a single


constructive suggestion or anything which could be called a compromise draft for a treaty, but had only offered procedural obstruction. Her one aim seemed to be to get all the Western Powers completely out of the Far East while increasing her own hold in that area, and the eventual proposals which she put forward at San Francisco bear this out.
Had they been accepted, these Soviet amendments would have completely undone the liberal character of the Treaty, and, therefore, would have gone no distance towards meeting the wishes of a country like India. They would have forced the United States right out of the whole of that area, and, at the same time—and I ask the House to note this—would have given to the Soviet Union new strategic privileges in the area in addition to the very considerable territorial gains already obtained by her as a result of her brief intervention in the war against Japan. Therefore, I think that the purposes of the Soviet moves at San Francisco were transparent and were not such as could have commanded the support of many of the countries involved, least of all ourselves or the rest of the Commonwealth.
These, then, are the circumstances in which we had to face a choice between a delay to which we could not put any definite term and proceeding to a treaty for which we had pressed for years and to which we knew that something close on 50 nations would be prepared to agree. Therefore, we decided to proceed. We tried, and I believe successfully, in the text of the Treaty to safeguard the position of China. Articles 10 and 21, I think, achieve that purpose. The position now is that Japan, after the Treaty, will have to decide what her own relations are to be with China. That was the clear understanding between us and the United States negotiators. It was made doubly plain between us and many other countries at San Francisco.
I have seen certain suggestions that there are some in the United States who would like to make United States ratification of this Treaty dependent on prior decision by Japan to recognise the Nationalist authorities. I sincerely trust that no such situation will arise. I am quite sure that it would not be the wish of any of those engaged on behalf of the

United States in negotiating this Treaty, and I know it would be regarded, not only by them, but certainly by the representatives of many of the nations who signed the Treaty, as a clear departure from the understanding upon which this question was left on one side by the signatories at San Franciso.
Moreover, having got to the point where we have, I think there is a great deal to be said for allowing this most important question of the long-term relationship between two of the greatest nations in Asia to be settled exclusively by Asians. Nothing we could have done or refrained from doing in respect of this Treaty could have prevented the problem of Japan's future relations with her neighbours from being full of deep anxiety. It is an illusion to think that the indefinite prolongation of the occupation, with all its disadvantages to Japanese evolution and its cost to the United States, would, in some way, have promoted agreement with Peking.
I do not believe it, nor do I believe that what we have actually done seriously prejudices the chances of such an agreement. If the Chinese wish to end the fighting in Korea, as I trust they do—and we have always said that we regarded that as the first step in a Far Eastern settlement—this Treaty will certainly not deter them. Once that step has been taken, nothing in this Treaty will make any harder a solution of the problems of recognition, of Formosa and all the others which will then certainly have to be tackled.
On the credit side, on the other hand, it offers a better prospect of a reasonable development in Japan of friendly relations with ourselves and the Commonwealth, to say nothing of the many others formerly at war with her, than any other course open to us to take at the relevant time. I believe, therefore, that this Treaty, little as one feels enthusiasm for it, was necessary. But I agree that it leaves most of the basic problems of the Far East still unsolved, and in the coming months and years great efforts will be needed on our part both to help guide Japan's efforts into acceptable channels and also to see that our point of view is fully understood in the United States.
As elsewhere in the world so, I believe, in the Far East, it is only by the determined pressing of our views, within the


framework of Anglo-American co-operation, that we can hope to make our contribution to establishing peaceful relations.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: In the penultimate sentence of his speech, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) said very rightly that this Treaty leaves the majority of the great questions of the Far East unresolved. But he might have gone further and said that it opens up a whole new series of problems, not only in the Far East, but reaching into the rest of the world from the Far East.
My mind goes back to 1946 when I believe I was the first Member of this House to raise the question of the whole series of competitive effects that might arise from Japan. The then President of the Board of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps, after suggesting that those fears were ill-founded, proposed as a remedy the raising of the cost of living in Japan as being a sort of panacea that would settle all these problems.
I think we have progressed a good way on the path of realism since then. I can quote from another hon. Member on the benches opposite, and one who in 1947 had a relative degree of freedom. I am referring to the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who, on 18th April of that year, said:
Very often I am despondent about the small amount of knowledge that there is down here as to what is actually taking place behind the scenes in Lancashire and Yorkshire on the question of textiles. We are in a very dangerous position—very dangerous. If we persist in backing America and backing Japan to maintain 80 per cent. of Japan's exports in textiles, we are asking for suicide in Lancashire—and Yorkshire, too, ultimately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 557.]
The hon. Gentleman's freedom of speech was slightly curtailed later when he joined the Government and he was compelled to see a slightly different more rosy view. It is obvious from what has been said and what will be said in this Debate that this Peace Treaty has to be signed. There is no alternative. But as it solves no problems, surely the task in front of this House today is to see what steps can be taken to implement it and that it is not merely a series of words.
We heard from the right hon. Gentleman that many of the practices of Japan—dumpings, sometimes State subsidised and sometimes due to a very low cost of living—that took place all over the the world before the war were in contradiction to conventions and treaties. What we have to do is not to worry so much about how these clauses are drawn, but to see what chance there is of their being less deadly throughout the world—and not only in the Far East—than they were on a previous occasion.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken before now in that sense. In the past, the voice of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has been heard very clearly, not only in this House but over a far greater area, urging the then Government to start taking steps. We have to say quite openly—and with the Government we have today we are now in a position to say things more openly to the United States than before, because their feelings toward us have changed a good deal—that we had not very much to do with the running of Japan or with the original negotiations when this Treaty was drawn up.
Our Ambassador in Japan waited too often in the outer court. I have an idea that today he must think he is in a warm, friendly, all-boys-together atmosphere in the new post he now holds as Ambassador in Moscow compared with what happened when he was in Japan. There is no doubt that we did not have a very great deal to say in the drawing up of this Treaty, and I believe that the great problem in the mind of everyone, and particularly of Lancashire Members, is that the great influence in Japan will still be that of the United States of America.

Mr. Younger: I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman on the point he makes about our not having had much to do with the drawing up of the Treaty. As he probably knows, the final draft was compiled from two drafts which were compared with each other, one produced by us and the other by the United States. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Treaty is the result quite as much of our draft as of that of the United States.

Mr. Fletcher: But the original negotiations which took place in Japan before we came to the question of drawing up the Treaty were largely carried out by


the then American No. 1. That is something we should not forget.
There is no doubt that it is in the implementing of this Treaty that our interests must lie. Those who represent constituencies whose life blood is very largely textiles have a peculiar interest, but they too must not look at the matter only from their point of view. It has always been perfectly clear that competition would come, not only in textiles but in other articles, from Japan, an industralised country parallel to us in a great many ways.
What we have to do is not to try to prevent proper competition, which in itself will not be a bad thing as a spur to us. From the very facts of the case there must be difficult competition because the lower Japanese standard of life is due to natural causes and cannot be artificially improved, but we have to prevent the growth of the grossly unfair competition which we suffered before. That, I think, does not lie entirely in our hands. It is well to accept this Treaty on the basis that there will come a time, as has been the case with Germany, when we shall have, to a great extent, if not to forgive, to forget.
In the Far East we cannot build up anything like the sort of balance of power that is likely to preserve peace, even when the Korean war is at an end, unless we have a Japan with a reasonable future and with some sort of hope of retaining and improving her standard of living. It is a most complicated problem.
One of the things one must remember, if one faces all the facts, is that in some areas of the world there is no doubt that the prospects for manufacturers of certain lines in this country to export are very much less than they were because Japan emerged from the last war without a great burden of overseas debt such as we have; she emerges rebuilt very largely with American technical help and, in spite of having suffered defeat and receiving the first atom bomb, in many ways better able to compete and to produce than we are. Those are inescapable facts and no wishful thinking and no threat can really mitigate them.

Mr. S. Silverman: To add one more to those inescapable facts, the mainly resuscitated Japanese industry is being resuscitated by American capital, which presumably will remain in control.

Mr. W. Fletcher: That is certainly the fact, but how far it goes I do not know. I am not afraid of facing those facts, even though they are inescapable. I believe that healthy competition based on their national advantages against our natural advantages—and we have a great many, including Lancashire skill—is not to be feared.
But I should like to come to the main question of the unfair practices that existed and how, let us hope, we shall be able to stop them in future. We know quite well that there are clauses which, to a certain extent, require respect for patents and copyrights, but we have seen before how the Japanese have broken international contracts and agreements on these important subjects, and I have produced evidence of it in the House before now, especially in the case of textiles for West Africa. I hope that this is one of the things which the Prime Minister and those who are going with him will take up in America because it will affect our export position and, therefore, our financial strength and our rearmament possibilities.
We should try to secure some convention, well backed up by America and other countries and ourselves, to make quite certain that these unfair dumping practices of the past are not repeated. Unless we arrive at some really basic solution in respect of which it is understood in the United States that we in Lancashire in particular are highly vulnerable on this point, we shall not unilaterally be able to do very much. We could not do so before the war. Japan took not the slightest notice of what other countries said. She indulged in every kind of practice and broke every copyright and every trade mark known. We must not forget that.
Undoubtedly there is great fear in the minds of many people in industrial areas, especially in Lancashire, in this country that once we in this House accept this Treaty, as undoubtedly we shall do today, and once it is ratified, it will pass from our minds and we shall not take the follow-up action which is so vital in seeing that a repetition of past events is not allowed to take place. It is up to hon. Members—on no party basis at all—representing those constituencies most vitally affected, to see that this House is kept fully aware of these malpractices if and when they take place.
There are plenty of signs that the danger is by no means past. I can produce Japanese prints sold in West Africa to show that the finger of Japan is reaching out there and creating competition. If Japan, as she may well do, buys raw material such as cotton on a better basis than we do she will have a considerable advantage. It is perfectly certain that what matters most is not the legislation, not the signing of the Treaty, but firm determination on the part of those Powers who do not want to see again the dumping from that area which caused unemployment and low wages.
Everybody who has served in the Far East, as I did during the war, has the right to think that though Japan is having a chance again to join in the comity of nations, it does not automatically mean that we have forgotten and forgiven everything that happened. Japan has to prove not only to our satisfaction but to the satisfaction of the rest of the world that she is worthy, that she is conducting herself on the lines that make it right that she should join, and that when we admit her there will not be this arrière pensée, this fear. Let us make quite certain by our own action. Above all, by direct negotiation with the United States, let us take immediate steps on the somewhat narrow front of policy on design and copyright and patents.
There is the question of compensation. Because it was difficult to collect and would not be sufficient we did not pursue that subject in full. There are, however, many countries like Indonesia and Malaya, which saw vast quantities of their possessions removed to Japan and which are receiving insufficient compensation, and they feel very strongly about it.
There must be some deterrent against a repetition of past events. As we have no alternative, we must agree to the ratification of this Treaty, but we must sound a note of caution and ask for early negotiations with the United States and other nations to restrict the wrong activities of which there are already signs. Above all we should ask that no "most favoured nation" treaty rights shall be given to Japan. If there are to be any "most favoured nation" treaty rights at all it should be for those who suffered, working together for democracy

and not for those who did their utmost at the time to upset it.
Therefore, I give this Treaty the blessing which comes from a constituency which will be vitally affected by the outcome of Japanese trade and competition over the next few years. I hope that early negotiation will take place to safeguard against as far as we can, and to watch with the utmost vigilance for any sign of a return to semi-feudal control and the low standard of living which that meant and which prevailed in Japan for so many years to our grievous detriment.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day six months."
I move this Amendment because I have lived in Lancashire for many years, and have obtained and retained the confidence of thousands of people in North Staffordshire for a long time. According to my understanding of what has been said, discussions on this Treaty have been taking place since 1947. They have taken place in all kinds of committees in the United States during that time.
Those of us who obtain American newspapers daily and read them—I emphasise "read them"—will have seen that those papers have been discussing this Treaty and its effect during the past two or three years, yet this is the first occasion that this House; representing a great industrial country, has had an opportunity of discussing the Treaty. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Does anyone say "No"? It is true it has been raised on the Adjournment and I also raised it at 12.30 a.m., and it has been raised occasionally in debates on foreign affairs, but this House has never had an opportunity of a full-scale debate of the kind which has taken place in America.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), whose approach to this problem I like, said something to the effect that it is the duty of the occupying Power to encourage democratic development. I accept that and I shall produce evidence later to show to what extent that encouragement has been carried out. Later, my right hon. Friend said something to the effect that, "It was our belief at the time that democratic


development was taking place." If I have time I shall produce further evidence to deal with that.
I and my hon. Friends move and support this Amendment because we know the past to our cost and we fear the future. The pottery and cotton industries are very concerned about this Treaty following their terrible experiences between the two wars. Almost every trade union official in Lancashire and North Staffordshire is indignant at the failure to take steps to safeguard their interests.
The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent met the executive of the National Union of Pottery Workers during the Election because some people were trying to capitalise on this Treaty politically. The executive of the Union made it quite clear to us what our attitude should be towards the Treaty. The spinners' and weavers' officials throughout Lancashire are also indignant about this matter. Everybody closely in touch with the shipbuilding areas of the country knows the anxieties there. Hon. Members familiar with the Birmingham area know the uneasiness of the large-scale manufacturers of light engineering products such as bicycles.
Everyone knows these industries are making a mighty contribution to Britain's economic position. We all know that none of us can live in this country unless we carry on a great export trade. Industry is making a mighty effort, with management and workmen co-operating and going all out to secure the maximum output. They are uneasy at seeing us in this House acquiescing in the proposals involved in this Treaty.
The Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades and the officials of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and other engineering unions are all very concerned about the effect of this Treaty upon this country. May I say this to those who may disagree with me? In a few years, if we in this country are faced with competition from Japan and Germany and if wages in those countries are 100 per cent. lower than they are in this country, if they work longer hours and have no social services worth talking about, how will this country meet that competition?

Mr. H. Hynd: Wages could not be 100 per cent. lower than in this country.

Mr. Smith: How much per cent. then? Fifty per cent.? Some of us have been through this kind of thing between the wars and we know the effects. Here are a few extracts from one of the latest American books entitled, "Aspects of Labour Problems" by the International Institute of Pacific Relations:
Union-busting tactics on the part of employers were not a major factor in Japan. They were not necessary; the police did the job.
That is democratic development. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was this pre-war?"] No, it is since the war. If any hon. Member likes to go to the Library and ask the Librarian, he can obtain a book in which this book is reviewed and from which these extracts have been copied. Had I known this debate was to take place I would have asked the Librarian to obtain the book as quickly as possible, so that we could have it before us this afternoon. On page 240 the book says:
Japanese labour faces a stiffer attitude on the part of employers and a tough-minded ultra-Conservative Government. The greatest obstacle to the development of the labour movement in Japan is the attitude of the Government which regards all labour organisation as potentially or actually subversive.
In face of that, how can the Japanese workers organise themselves in trade unions? Japan is a menace to democracy and the standard of living which democracy has built up throughout the world.
Here is another extract, not from a labour man, not from a trade unionist but from Mr. Roger Lee, Chairman of the Calico Printers' Association and also Chairman of one of Lancashire's biggest concerns:
Mr. Lee complained that Japanese 'pattern pirates' were still stealing popular Lancashire designs 'Originality of design is vital to this association.' he said, 'but we are still faced with the contemptible practice of our registered designs being copied in Japan.'
Anyone who knows anything about designing and development must know that a tremendous amount of work and cost is involved behind the scenes prior to bringing out a design. It was my privilege to work at one of the largest industrial establishments in this country where, even before the war, £150,000 was spent each year on research alone to enable it to keep pace with modern developments and competition which was then taking place. When that takes place the overhead charges and on-costs are, of


course, increased. Therefore, we should not encourage other countries to copy designs and put them on the market at greatly reduced charges.
I have before me the Treaty of Peace which we are considering, and which I obtained from the Vote Office. It states:
This Treaty has not yet been ratified by His Majesty's Government.
I want to know whether the Government will oppose Japan being allowed to become a member of the United Nations unless we can have undertakings to the satisfaction of representative industrialists in this country. When I refer to representative industrialists, I include the trade unions, employers and other organisations representative of all engaged in industry. They should be consulted before we agree to Japan being allowed to enter the United Nations.
It is time we spoke out at United Nations. In view of Britain's great record in two world wars, we are entitled to go to the United Nations Assembly and speak in the way in which I hope the elected representatives of this country will speak in this House tonight. The Treaty also says:
… private trade and commerce to conform to the internationally accepted fair practices.
That has been repudiated already. It has been repudiated by the practices which are being carried out by Japan.
If hon. Members doubt that, I invite them to go and ask the pottery manufacturers or the trade unions. Let them ask the cotton and silk industries if Japan is conforming to accepted fair practices. Go to any part of Stoke, Manchester, Blackburn, Oldham, Bolton, Macclesfield and Leek, and ask whether copying is taking place at the present time. I am not asking hon. Members to accept what I am saying; let me quote from "The Times." This is concrete evidence. of the inability of the American occupying force to allow democratic development to take place in Japan; and, therefore, a fight in this House is a fight not only to defend our country and our fellow workers about who I am concerned, but we are also assisting the Japanese workers in the fight that they are putting up on this issue.
In "The Times" of 2nd July this year, from their Tokio correspondent, there is

an article entitled "Labour standards in Japan." It goes on to say:
Japanese industrialists have been heard to state recently that since the British Government has concurred fully in America's ideas of a peace settlement, there is no longer any need to tolerate nonsense about wages, working hours and so on. For the first time since the surrender a private organisation—the Tokio Chamber of Commerce—has urged that daily working hours be increased from eight to 10, that restrictions on overtime and holiday work be 'eased'"—
and we know what that means—
that conditions of employment for children and female workers be 'revised' and that annual leave with pay be shortened. Management groups, however, now go farther and demand that the law relating to labour standards be rescinded. This law not only protected Japanese workers, but also ensured that the British Commonwealth and other countries would not again be confronted by competition made possible by the employment of something closely approaching slave labour.
Mr. Richard Hughes, of the "Sunday Times," above all papers, on 3rd June this year, referred to
the campaign in Japan to destroy Occupation labour standards, to increase the working hours of Japanese workers, to abolish overtime, and to restore the big family combine monopolies.
There it is in its stark reality. That is facing us now, and it is a terrible menace to the standard that we have been able to build up within British democracy.
Will the Government insist on a full implementation of the undertakings before Japan is allowed to become a member of the United Nations? I will let hon. Members into a secret. Before we become members of trade union, or of most unions, we have to appear before the president of the branch and give an undertaking that we will abide loyally by the rules of the organisation and uphold the standards of conditions of our fellow workers. If it is right to do that internally in Britain, the time has arrived when we should also do it internationally so far as we can. Will the Government insist on an interpretation of this Treaty so that, as far as possible, we may maintain our standards and international fair practices? Will the Government ask for a Commonwealth conference to consider and decide upon a Commonwealth policy?
In Articles 7 and 12 one finds that United States big business has safeguarded its interests. If I had time I would give an example of how badly we let ourselves down in 1945, and it is because Clause 7


in the Loan Agreement provided for a strictly legal interpretation that we were not in order in keeping in being the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation. That body made a great effort during the war, and in my opinion it could have been used for the purpose of organising our trade to enable Britain to obtain the best results from our raw materials at the lowest possible price. The Americans have safeguarded their position, and the time has arrived when we should be doing the same.
If any hon. Members have any doubts about the truth of what I am saying, all they have to do is to get the 1950 Trades Union Congress Report; if I had time I would quote from it. Statements by some of the finest characters representing the T.U.C. are to be found therein—men like Mr. Lewis Wright of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association, who states that the Americans have prevented the Japanese from organising like they should do. When the Americans had assisted them in a certain direction a gentleman named Mr. Dodge imposed an economic policy which prevented them from organising as they should.
I wish I had time to read this extract, because it should really go on the record, but I want to be as brief as possible and, therefore, I shall confine myself to these few remarks. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read it."] All hon. Members have to do is to get the 1950 T.U.C. Report. If anyone has any difficulty in getting the Report, I will obtain it in the morning and hon. Members can read it for themselves.
I have with me a letter. I am not going to give the name of the sender, because I want to save time and I only want to quote parts of it. I know the type of person who has written it. He is typical of the decent people who try to do the right thing by themselves, their country, and their workpeople. The letter says:
I have had samples sent over from America which are almost, one could say, fantastic. It was not a question of copying the type of design, but it was almost an exact tracing, and, of course, the price retail is one third of our price. We must not be confused altogether by what happened pre-1939 when this unfair competition was very serious indeed, but the future is very much more serious because the Japanese have considerably increased the quality of their ware—I would almost say out of all proportion. I do not want you to get the impression that we

are in the slightest degree afraid of Japanese manufacturers of china in the true sense of the word, if the competition is fair, but when they copy our designs so exactly, and so quickly after we have brought them out ourselves, it is a very serious threat to the industry.
This was happening only a few weeks ago. An American traveller was exhibiting two cups, one made in Japan and the other made in Britain. The one which I hold in my hand is an exact copy, and he was telling our customers in America that the Japanese could produce identical cups, the quality not as good but almost as good, and—the tragedy is—at one third of our price.
We have reached our standards not by talking and not at all easily, but through the terrible sacrifices of our people. We ought not to let this Treaty go through without making our voice heard, not only in this country but by letting it ring throughout the other countries which have been responsible for putting us in this position. This is economic aggression of the very worst type. We have fought twice in my lifetime to deal with military aggression, and the time has arrived when those who took a long time to come to our support in both world wars should be reminded that they ought to come to our support immediately in face of this economic aggression which will have such an effect upon our country.
Before the war, when the pottery industry lost its orders, it always lost them to Japan. They made little inroads into our own country—only through the chain stores—but they did make big inroads into the Commonwealth. In a decade before the war the imports of Japanese pottery increased by 50 per cent. into Canada, 70 per cent. into Australia and 45 per cent, into South Africa. By 1940 the Japanese claimed to be the world's chief producers of domestic pottery. Therefore, there is no doubt about our attitude in North Staffordshire to this matter, and that is why I have moved the Amendment.
In October, 1945, 15 ships sailed regularly between Japan and Australia, and 14 of them were British. Australian importing firms say they can get shipping space for goods from Japan more easily than they can for goods from Britain. Consequently, we should be concerned about this problem not only from the point of view of the industries I have


mentioned, but also from that of many other industries.
The Americans have embarked upon a new form of imperialism. They are very critical of British imperialism, but in my opinion they are not entitled to be in view of their own modern form of imperialism, which is known as financial penetration. They go along with their millions of dollars, with their loans, with controlling interests, with subsidies; and I am reminded of the words of one of the greatest who ever lived, who wrote:
You take my life
When you do take the means whereby I live.
We ought to speak up against this policy whereby those who are relatively well placed go along to organise slave labour under slave conditions, in which democracy has no chance to develop. Tonight, we stand for the defence of the hard-won rights of the British people, of our trade union rights and standards, and we stand, too, for the Japanese worker. We must not forget the encouragement of economic suicide which took place before the war as a result of the international worsening of standards. The Trades Union Congress say that should not be allowed to start again. In taking this stand we are taking it not only on behalf of our country, our own industries and our own people but, we believe, on behalf of the workers of Japan; for we believe that we are taking a stand which will assist the Japanese people themselves.

5.2 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to second the Amendment.
When the Minister opened the debate this afternoon he showed at once that he himself was aware of some of the fears which exist in the minds of hon. Members on all sides of the House. He spoke of our fears about unfair and injurious competition and went on to make it clear that in his view there was no place in a peace treaty for safeguards or, certainly, no place for restrictions. A little later he said that we wanted this Treaty because it was the only way by which we could establish normal commercial and political relationships. He said they would follow the treaty.
I wonder whether he will agree when I make this comment; if, by normality,

he meant the sort of conditions which existed before the war, we should not find that acceptable. If there are to be normal political and commercial relationships with Japan they will have to be based on something which has not been enjoyed in the past. I think we are all agreed on that.
The hon. Gentleman went further. He was good enough to say that he expected a full-blooded attack by two hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent. I am sure that the House will agree that they had such an attack from my colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith); and if I cannot achieve what he has achieved, that will be my fault and not his.
We have heard it said again and again that General MacArthur should be praised for the benevolence which was shown in the occupation policy. I think all of us recognise that the United States had to bear a great financial burden in supporting the Japanese people, to say nothing of the cost of the military occupation itself, which was very high. It is plain for the whole world to see today that, under the shield which has been held up for these past years, Japan and the Japanese have been re-organising their exporting industries, including the pottery and textile industries, and that they are now able to move into a position from which they can under-sell any competitor in the world. Certainly, they can undersell any country where wages are what we call normal and where labour standards are of the type to which we are accustomed in this country.
I have been informed—and I think it is true; but hon. Members who know the textile industry better than I can tell me whether I am right—that, so far, the tendency has been for Japan to sell her textiles at prices which are based, more or less, not on the cost of production in Japan but rather on the cost we incurred in Lancashire. Accordingly, the manufacturers have made high profits. I believe that is true, and is perhaps one of the reasons why Lancashire has not yet felt anything like the full evil which may come from the sort of competition we experienced before the war.
But that is certainly not true of the pottery industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) tells me that the textile industry is beginning to feel that kind of


competition now, as well, but we have felt it in the pottery industry for quite a time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, gave a typical example when he spoke of fine china manufacture, where the Japanese under sell us by charging about one-third of the amount which we are able to get for our goods. That has been going on for quite a long time. Sometimes they sell at one-fifth of our price, and I have known the figure to be one-seventh in some of the small figures representing old British patterns.
It is only a year or so ago that another of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), produced pottery figures showing that in the case of some Toby jugs we were being under-sold by productions costing about one-eighth of our prices, for what were exact imitations of our patterns.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that what he is speaking of is destructive competition and not merely the establishment by Japan of a secondary market at a lower price in these goods?

Dr. Stross: I am very grateful for that intervention. That is the case. It is the penetration into our old-established markets by exact imitation—although not all of it is imitation—of our patterns which takes away our living from us. But it is not all like that. Like my hon. Friend, I quote from a letter from a great firm in Stoke-on-Trent:
The Japanese capacity for manufacture is improving very considerably indeed. Their goods are not to be despised at all.
This combination of American "know-how," together with cheap, almost slave labour, is something with which no one in the world can possibly compete. We cannot compete. I am told that the Supreme Command made strong attempts to prevent dumping—and I am using the word technically. I believe the American Customs Bureau has given a definition of dumping, using such words as,
To sell goods under the cost of production.
But this definition is useless, for we know that Japanese labour costs figure so low in the cost of production as scarcely to count at all by comparison

with our own. It has been estimated that the difference between their costs of production and ours is greater today than it was before the war. I have in mind an article in the "Economist" last month, which said costs were in the order of three to one. When we made these complaints it is not only wages which we have in mind, but also all the other overheads which we speak of as the social content of wages—safeguards relating to the health of the worker, compensation to the worker if he has been injured by accident or crippled by industrial disease—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Factory inspection.

Dr. Stross: These costs are high in Britain, as they are in every civilised country, and we are proud of the cost. They are the social content of our costs; they are the last thing we want to give up and they have been obtained only through hundreds of years of struggle. We want Japan and the Japanese worker to be safeguarded in exactly the same way. In the Potteries we say that our victories over lead poisoning, which once used to slay our workers in hundreds, and over silicosis, which killed them in thousands, have cost a great deal of money, and all that cost is embodied in the articles we produce and try to sell.
Since the war we have rationalised our factories considerably. I hope the House will forgive me for speaking parochially about an age-old industry which is located in the city in which I live. We have modernised our industry, which we think is a good bit better than any in the world, but apart from the manufacture of some of the finest types of ware, like bone china, we know we can never compete with the Japanese under today's conditions.
The other day the managing director of Wedgwoods told the Press, amongst other things, that their exports, which are sold through their agencies in Toronto and New York, last year came to 3½ million dollars. That gives some evidence that the industry has been useful to the country—and this is only one firm. Last year, I believe, the country exported £5 million worth of fine china in all and £10 million worth of earthenware. I know that may not be great by comparison with the income of a great nation like ourselves, but it is life and death to the people in the area—and what I am saying


about pottery in particular applies to many other industries in this country in exactly the same way.
The problem which we have to face is not only economic, but also sociological—a sociological problem in which the Japanese worker himself is the very first victim. He lives in islands and in a part of the world where the people have been exploited by tyranny and serfdom and have achieved little or no freedom. The occupation authorities tried to plant the seed of freedom during the years of occupation, but it is fair to say that the green shoots of the plant are scarcely visible as yet. The trade unions have grown on the modern lines of American labour, but their influence as yet in bargaining power can in no way be compared with the type of influence to which we are accustomed in this country, where it is so helpful and stabilising.
For instance, in January, 1947, when there was the threat of a strike in Japan, designed to give some redress in a very small way—and I emphasise, in a very small way—to the disparity between wages and prices, the Supreme Commander stepped in and said the strike must not be allowed to take place. He forbade it. That was a great pity and showed a lack of understanding of how labour should defend itself under such conditions.
The Japanese workers are probably worse off today than they were before the war. Our own workers in the Potteries have told us what they feel about this matter and they take a very broad and generous view of it, remembering the difficulties in which they were placed in the years between the two wars and bearing in mind the fact that they cannot compete with Japanese labour while the Japanese worker is exploited. They say that the first thing is for us to use all our influence in Britain, and all the influence we have internationally, to persuade Japan, in the first place, to improve conditions for her own workers, not only by improving wages as compared with the cost of living but also by protecting the health of the worker and introducing the type of safeguards which we have for our own workers.
Secondly, if it has been possible for the Japanese to sell textiles at prices equivalent to those we have been getting for Lancashire goods, why cannot the same be done for their pottery manufac-

tures? Our workers think—and they are very explicit about this—that if no agreement can be reached with, and no promises made by, Japan before the Treaty is ratified, there is not much chance of it being done later. They believe that Japan has curried favour with the occupying Power by being complacent to everything asked of her and they believe that Japan's policies will receive less check and less hindrance from now on if this Treaty is ratified.
There is a serious matter that all of us in this House must bear in mind. Debarred by American pressure from seeking raw materials and a market in China, Japan will turn more and more to the sterling and dollar areas both for raw materials and for markets for her goods, and that means that the evil that we have in mind, the evil from which we suffered before the war, will be doubled—certainly aggravated—in the near future.
Japan has tremendous problems of her own, and we would do all we could to help her. Her population has increased since 1936 from 70 million to 80 million. Possibly, in a good year, when the harvest is good, she is able to feed herself, but not very well. She imports food. This brings me to a thought that we should not forget. I have heard it argued today that we should not stand in the way of Japan's exporting her cheap finished articles all over South-East Asia, because that would help raise the standard of living of the peoples in that part of the world.
But is that really correct? Is it not possible that that would work the other way round, in that those Japanese goods, flooding those markets, would garner into Japan all the rice of those areas, so leading to more hunger among and more exploitation of the peoples of South-East Asia, and proving, not a bar to Communist infiltration, but a help and encouragement to it? That is a thought to bear in mind, because South-East Asia wants not so much aspirins and Kodak cameras and fancy lighters. Does she not want rather the wherewithal to grow more food and to produce more goods for herself? Cheap finished goods from Japan may only skim off the food from South-East Asia.
It has been said that the world does not owe Staffordshire and Lancashire a living. I am not so sure about that. I


think that we who have been accustomed so long to paying decent prices for the food we have had from other civilised countries, recognising, as we have, that in the prices we have paid we have gladly paid an amount to cover decent wages and standards of labour—that is, when we have been buying from Scandinavia, from New Zealand, from Australia, from Canada—surely have at least the right to look to them to consider buying from us before they buy cheaper goods from countries where labour is exploited.
Lastly, I would turn from the parochial to the long-term point of view. People like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, believe that in the long term we cannot solve this problem unless we tackle the main problems that face us in the world today, and the chief one of those is the question of peace and war and the relationship between East and West.
We can visualise—we do not need to be poets to visualise—the possibility that, if there were not tension between East and West, if we were not cursed with preparations for world war and with rearmament, Japan, Germany and other countries, with France and the Soviet Union and many others, could all be working together side by side and bending all our efforts to put an end to the poverty in the world, and to go into those areas where our help is needed.
Were that the situation, we know very well that the problem we are now discussing would not exist at all. Could that be the situation the problem we are discussing would vanish, just as fog vanishes when the sun shines. I cannot help saying that we shall have to think again if we are to save the world by this method. We have been saying something about saving ourselves and our own standard of living, but that is the short term point of view. If we are to be successful in helping Japan as well as in helping ourselves, and in helping Germany as well as ourselves, and people all over the world, let us think again, and think in terms such as I have just envisaged.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Harwood Harrison: It is with a very real sense of humbleness that I rise to speak so soon after my entry into this House, but loyalty to the fellow soldiers with whom I went through three

and a half years in Japanese hands makes me speak on this question. I would ask for the usual indulgence accorded by this House to new Members—perhaps the more confidently because, to the best of my belief, it is nearly 300 years since an ancestor of mine last spoke in this House.
It is a matter for congratulation that within six years of the end of hostilities a Treaty such as this has been made—after a war which started with the unprovoked and catastrophic bombing of Pearl Harbour, the over-running of Malaya, the looting of the Dutch East Indies, and the threat to Australia; a war in which brutalities and massacres took place.
I think that in a treaty we must look for certain principles. I should like to enumerate only four: first, contrition by the country which has made acts of aggression; second, a sense of guilt amongst all individuals in a country which has broken international conventions and violated the accepted standards of civilised behaviour; third, there must be sufficient punishment by occupation and repatriation to bring the first two principles about; and fourth, the punishment so meted out should act as a deterrent to that country and to others so that aggression does not happen again. I am not quite satisfied that the last two principles are fully carried out in this Treaty.
The Foreign Secretary made a very grave statement to the House on 28th January, 1944, pointing out the conditions under which prisoners of war were existing—a statement which horrified the House and the whole country. At that time it was felt that full retribution should be exacted. Years afterwards I was able to read that statement, and as an eye-witness I can tell the House that it was a very accurate statement, but rather an under-statement than an overstatement of the conditions under which we were existing. It was so easy, when they were on top, for 80 years of civilisation—a veneer—to be set aside, and for us to see the barbarian underneath.
Are we satisfied that this Asiatic attitude to life has altered—their belief that strength and might are right, and their principles by which the officer hits the sergeant, the sergeant slaps the corporal, the corporal punches the first-class private, the first-class private beats the third-class private, and the third-class private takes it out of a prisoner of war?


We must be certain that the Japanese realise that defenceless people and women and children have rights, and that they should be respected.
Those of us who were soldiers there, under the orders of our King, want no pity, but we do feel that justice and reparation should be exacted. We have never expected or wanted anything special from the British taxpayers. I myself, after my return, thought that the worst cases could be adequately dealt with by our Ministry of Pensions, and that those who were fitter, and after recovery, would return to do their jobs as capable citizens of this country.
I represent the Eye Division with some 180 parishes, and in scarcely one of them is there not a former prisoner of war, or the relative of one who died out there. I have been very perturbed, in the last two years, to find that men who, I thought, had recovered are now breaking up, and that latent illnesses are displaying themselves. Many of these men are particularly restless in their employment. I have seen many of them, and it is particularly for those men that I would speak, because I am afraid that some indelible mark has been left upon them.
I would not weary the House with a recital of the conditions in which we existed then, except to say that I have seen virile, active men in their 20's and 30's reduced by slave labour to being worn out old men who died by starvation or disease due to the callousness of the Japanese towards human life. Money can be little compensation, but at least it does buy some comforts.
This matter was debated in the House on 10th May this year in a debate initiated by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House when they were on that side of the House. In the debate the view was put forward by all parties that a special case had been made out for these ex-Service personnel, and it was hoped that it would be met. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who was then the Foreign Secretary, remembered that when he went to sign this Treaty?
I know full well that under Article 16 certain sums of money have been put aside, but on working it out, one finds that there is practically no more than £1

million for the ex-Service personnel in this country. There can be no issue per capita of grant. There may have to be a means test in the way this money is administered by the Red Cross, and that really defeats the object that we had in mind. This £1 million barely recompenses the Red Cross for the food parcels stolen from them by the Japanese in the war. I wonder—I do not want to be controversial—whether or not the wool was not drawn across the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, who was then the Foreign Secretary; or if that is being controversial, perhaps I should say that I wonder whether his eyes were dimmed by drops of oil.
I have heard many speeches in this House about Japanese competition, and I know that there is mention under Article 14 about compensation, and about Japan's economic position not being sound. But I doubt whether that is true. We have the case of the loan and of the bonds lent to Japan before the war, and we have only to look at the rise in value of the £75 million at par that has taken place in the last few years to see what many people in this country think of the ability of the Japanese to pay. There is a further sum of £37,500,000 due in interest which they may well pay, and I feel they might have met the claim of £9 million that we wanted—some quarter of the interest due. I should like to know, if Japan comes to borrow money again from this country, that at least this moral obligation has first been met. It would only mean that she has to work a little longer. The whole amount is little more than 2s. per head of the whole of the Japanese population.
Has this Treaty failed as a deterrent? Do other nations now think that the Japanese can now treat the white man with impunity and get away with it? The Korean war started in June, 1950, and it is rather remarkable that it was not until after the terms of this Treaty were known that we got the facts which led to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary making the statement he did in the House a week ago. It had the same familiar ring. We could get no information of the prisoners. The normal channels through the Red Cross or neutrals were closed. It did not take much imagination on my part to visualise how many of these United


Nations soldiers now in Communist hands may be alive today. Have we made no progress at all?
In conclusion, I would say that one of the most emotional moments of my life was in August, 1945, when I, with many others, thin but, I think, undaunted, climbed on to the roof of our gaol at Changi and pulled down the hated Japanese flag, remembering all the brutality that had happened underneath it, and hoisted, in its place, the Union Jack, planting it, as we believed, for freedom, justice, law and order throughout the world. I realise that with all its implications it is necessary to pass this Bill to ratify the Treaty, but I would ask that, in implementing it, we do try to see that in all the Japanese people there is inculcated sanctity for human life, and that they give compensation to those to whom they brought sorrow and hardship.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am pleased that it falls to me to offer to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. H. Harrison) what, I am sure, are the congratulations of the whole House upon a quite exceptional and remarkable maiden speech. There is, of course, a tradition in these matters, that an hon. Member must not be controversial; but never that a maiden speech should not be passionate and sincere.
The hon. Gentleman, without being controversial at all, has impressed all of us with the restrained, controlled emotion and sincerity of his speech, and I am sure that we shall all look forward with pleasurable anticipation to hearing him on subsequent occasions. I should like to say to him, however, that although the custom of the House prevents me from engaging in any kind of debate with him, he has done something a little more than is done normally in a maiden speech, and that is to make a definite and significant contribution to the debate in reminding all of us of the background against which we are debating this Bill.
I should like to support my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. In doing so, it is right that one should ask what would be the consequences—and my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) invited us to do so—if we succeeded on a

Division, or without one, in carrying the Amendment. It is clear that the first consequence of such a decision by the House of Commons would be, at any rate, to postpone the ratification of the Treaty. It is very difficult indeed to understand what possible harm could be done by a postponement of the ratification of a Treaty which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) described, I thought quite modestly, as a Treaty which did not settle any of the existing problems of the Far East, and which did originate a large number of new ones.
There are two aspects to this matter. One is the local and domestic—the economic—and the other the place that the Treaty, if ratified, would hold in the present complex of international relations. I propose to say a word or two about each of them. As to the first, the cotton trade of Lancashire since 1945, for the first time this century, has been expanding. For most of the period since the end of the First World War, the Lancashire cotton industry was rapidly contracting year by year. The tendency was always to have fewer spindles, fewer looms and to produce less, and Lancashire was becoming, or, at any rate, many of the towns that lived by cotton were becoming, a series of depopulated towns.
Unemployment was high, underemployment was high, and concealed unemployment was high. Things were getting progressively worse. For a period of six years since the end of the War the opposite has been the case. There has been full-employment, Lancashire has been prosperous, the Lancashire cotton trade has been prosperous, and while the standard of living of the workers and their security of employment has very much improved as compared with prewar years, the cotton manufacturers, too, have been making very large fortunes. It has been a prosperous industry.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who seemed to draw a distinction between the potteries and textiles said that there was a movement the other way as a direct consequence of the kind of competition which has been described. He was mistaken in thinking that these consequences had not yet reached Lancashire. Only this week, two mills in my own constituency, one in Colne and one in Nelson, have given


notice to close down, and the explanation given in both cases by the owners of the factories was the growing challenge of unrestricted, unregulated, and unfair competition from Japan.
My right hon. Friend who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and played so notable and distinguished a part in these negotiations in San Francisco said, "Do not worry too much. Do not say there is nothing in the Treaty about all this. Here is half a sentence in the Preamble. There is somewhere else a half-hearted declaration. We have done all this, but you cannot put anything into the Treaty about it because you will achieve very little by way of practical result, and you will arouse for your little practical result a good deal of resentment." I should like to know whose resentment we would have aroused if we had insisted in putting into the operative part of the Treaty something to justify the Preamble and something to implement the declaration.

Mr. H. Morrison: What would my hon. Friend have put in?

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will wait a moment. I think that is a very reasonable question to ask, and in a minute or two I will suggest what should have been put in. It is quite clear that my right hon. Friend, whose speech I am quoting at the moment, had it in his mind that there were some things that could have been put in, because if he did not know what it was that could have been put in, it is difficult to know how he could tell that they would cause resentment if he had tried to do so. I should like to know whose resentment it would have caused. Who is fighting about this—the Japanese? Was it the resentment of the Japanese that he was afraid of?

Mr. John Hynd: Why not?

Mr. Silverman: Why not? If I were negotiating on the part of this country and had to choose between the resentment of the Japanese and the resentment of the people of Lancashire, I would choose the resentment of the Japanese. I ask again: Was it that he was resisting Japanese resentment? I just do not believe it. Resentment could only matter if it was the resentment of somebody more powerful, more influential, and able to exert

more pressure on the negotiator's mind than the Japanese. It is perfectly clear—if not, the right hon. Gentleman can deny it—that he would have liked to have put something into the Treaty.

Mr. Younger: I said that from 1946 onwards it was the settled policy of the Labour Government that there should not be economic restrictions of this kind. That was said by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1946 in this House when he was President of the Board of Trade, and I do not think there has ever been any deviation from it.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not want to mislead anybody. No one is talking about restrictions. We are talking about ways of saving Lancashire from the kind of unfair trading practices which it had to compete with before the war. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not pretending that he did not want to protect Lancashire from that.

Mr. Younger: If it is simply a question of unfair practices, I thought that I made it clear in the course of my remarks that it would not have been actually impossible to put provisions about that in the Treaty, but they would have been valueless, as was shown by experience before the war when various means of preventing it were tried and proved quite unenforceable.

Mr. Silverman: I am not complaining. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I quoted that part of his speech, and I think that I quoted it fairly and fully. He said it was worth-while to put it in the Preamble; it was worth-while to have a declaration, but it was not worth-while to have anything in the operative parts of the Treaty. The reasons he gave were twofold. One was that he said, "You cannot put anything effective into the operative parts of the Treaty; nothing that would be of any real value and, in order to do what was anyhow ineffective you would have had to arouse resentment."

Mr. Younger: That is why I ask whether it was on a limited point. The point about causing resentment when I quoted, not Japan, but India was on the question of restrictions of Japan's ability to earn her living. That was not intended to be


applicable to provisions designed to prevent her engaging in practices contrary to international usage, but to put that into the Treaty would have been unenforceable and, therefore, pointless.

Mr. Silverman: It would seem that there was nothing to cause any resentment if the right hon. Gentleman had put in the operative part of the Treaty some provision in order to ensure that unfair practices were not followed. There would have been no resentment about that.

Mr. Younger: No.

Mr. Silverman: That part of what we all understood was his argument when my right hon. Friend made his speech can thus be dismissed. We need not bother any more about the resentment part of it. It was not anybody's resentment that stopped us doing it, but it would have been unenforceable. Why would it have been any more unenforceable to put it into a Peace Treaty than into any other treaty negotiated thereafter? If these things are unenforceable, then they are unenforceable in whatever kind of treaty is made. If a treaty can be made on these points, and if these matters can be enforced, then those clauses can be put into the Peace Treaty just as easily as they could be put into any other treaty.
My right hon. Friend shakes his head. There is an old joke about that which I will not bother to remind him of. It is not surely being said that there is no way at all of protecting by treaty Lancashire, Staffordshire and other places from unfair practices of the kind that were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I cannot understand, once this business of resentment is out of the way, why the attempt should not have been made to embody such protection in this Treaty. Since something has been put into the Preamble and into the declaration by way of principle, why not put something in the operative clauses to give us some power to enforce the declarations, some power to make them real?
I was asked, "What kind of things?" and I promised I would reply. Why should there not have been in the Treaty some clause or clauses which would have ensured to the Japanese working class

the right of free association to protect and improve their standard of living, their hours of work, their conditions of labour and their wages.

Mr. S. O. Davies: As in the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the Charter deals with it very precisely, but there is the Declaration of Human Rights and other things, but if we did not want generalisations of that kind but something to protect the workers directly, there would have been nothing to prevent the putting into the operative part of the Treaty things that would have prevented anyone interfering with the Japanese in exercising their human rights in a democratic society, thus protecting themselves from just the very things which made them so unfair competitors with other workers all over the world.
I am amazed that the attempt was not made. I cannot understand why the attempt was not made, unless the explanation is that here, although dealing nominally with Japanese industry, we were not really dealing with it at all. Here you have American industry, which was providing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is a perfectly fair point, surely. We know that American capital had gone into Japanese industry since the war. Everybody knows it.

Mr. W. W. Astor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member shakes his head, but there is somebody sitting near to him, the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) who made that very point in his own speech. A lot of American capital has gone into Japanese industry since the war, and a lot of equipment has been installed there, too. I would not have bothered to comment on this matter if I had known that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. W. W. Astor) was drawing a distinction between capital and equipment.

Mr. Astor: I thought the hon. Gentleman was saying that American capital had taken shares in Japanese industry since the war It is well-known that the Allied Command in Japan would not allow that, but it is true that under the economic assistance which Japan got machinery was made available to her.

Mr. Silverman: Apparently we are not really in dispute, so we need not pursue the matter further. The hon. Gentleman thought that I was using the word "capital" in the financial sense, but that is not important. The important thing is that America's provision of new capital in any sense gives her control of Japanese industry and an interest in its development, and in doing the very things which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, described as having been reported, not by him, nor by people of our way of thinking.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Member has drawn the wrong conclusion from what I said. Does he really think that the fact that American industry, in one way or another, might have an interest in Japan would lead to lower wages, in view of the fact that America pays the highest wages of anyone in the world?

Mr. Silverman: I thought the hon. Member in this matter was on the same side as I was. Why is he starting an internecine civil war between Lancashire Members? I thought he invited us to conduct a gallant fight together in the interest of Lancashire against both Front Benches.
The point is that it was not any Japanese Government or any Japanese administration which interfered in the way my hon. Friend described. That was the American administration in Japan. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that it would have been possible, if he had wanted it, to have had operative clauses in this Treaty which, even though their ultimate sanction may have offered difficulties, would have given us, at any rate, some future right to be heard and to intervene about these matters, and would have given some assurance to our own industry that our Government was really looking after their interests.
I leave that part of it with only one other sentence. I would not for one moment wish anything I have said to be interpreted or used in any way in support of any notion that Japan is not entitled to earn its keep in the world by contributing what it can to the general wealth of the world, by the use of raw materials, machines and labour and adding to the general common stock. Even though the Japanese were our enemies, even though their conduct was what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. H.

Harrison) described, even though their entry into the war was perfidious and treacherous, there is no reason in the world why, for ever after, the Japanese should not be entitled to do all they can to earn their living.
Lancashire would have helped the Japanese to do that, and would be quite prepared to do so now and in the future as we have in the past. What we are saying is that the kind of competition which they practised before was no use to them and kept their own standard of living down at the very time when it interfered with our capacity to earn our own. It seems to me a dreadful thing that we should have been in such a hurry to sign a Treaty which admittedly solves no problems and which does nothing to offer any kind of protection of that kind.
I should like to say a word or two about its place in the general pacification of the world. It seems to me that treaties of peace have to be judged by the extent to which they contribute to the pacification of the world. It has been said by both speakers from the respective Front Benches that the time has come when Japan should be taken back into the comity of nations. I am not against that; but it seems to me that there is one nation in the Far East with a prior right to be taken back into the comity of nations—a right that takes precedence in time in morals, in politics and in common sense over the right of Japan.
After all, Japan took herself out of the comity of nations. Nobody put her out; nobody refused to recognise her; nobody refused to her equal rights with all other nations on the councils of the world. She took herself out of the comity of nations by an unheralded, unprovoked and entirely unjustified attack upon Pearl Harbour. This pacification of the world, upon which we would all like to feel that we are engaged, is the pacification of a world whose unrest did not begin in 1939 with the outbreak of the European War, and did not begin in December, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. It began long before, with the Japanese attack through the Korean peninsula, into Manchuria. The first breakdown of the whole system of collective security which we had sought to build since 1918 came with that act of aggression by Japan upon China.
China was the first victim of Japanese aggression. She suffered from it the longest and she suffered from it the worst. My right hon. Friend fully recognises that, as did the Government of which he was a member. We made no bones about recognising the actual de facto Government of China. It did not bother us whether it was Communist or not. We knew that that was not the test. That is not to say that we had no opinions or sympathies about it. Some went one way and some went the other. I make no secret of the fact that my sympathies in China were on the side of the Communists.
I do not see how anyone who wanted to see a better future for their country, if they lived in China and if they had open to them only the choices that were open to Chinese citizens, could have come to any other conclusion or taken any other side. To some it was a matter of regret. The late Mr. Ernest Bevin once said that our recognition of China was a regrettable necessity, but whether regrettable or not it was recognised as a necessity.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Ernest Bevin said to me only a few days before he passed away that in all the circumstances we must remain the best of friends with China.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the point we are now getting on to is going beyond what we should be discussing.

Mr. Silverman: I 'shall pass from it immediately, but I was just raising that very point in the hope that there would be no misunderstanding about it. It was Mr. Ernest Bevin, in the very last speech as Foreign Secretary which he made from that Box, who said that if the Americans had had as much good sense about the recognition of the Chinese Government as the British Labour Government had had, the Korean business might never have occurred at all. I pass from that. I quite agree it goes a little beyond even the wide limits of this debate.
I say that there was never any doubt or difficulty about the recognition of the Chinese Government by the Labour Government in Britain, and I understand that the present Government do not propose to interfere with it. I understand, and I was glad to hear, from my right hon.

Friend that he accepts the position that there can be not even the beginning of any pacification of the Far East without a clearing up of this Chinese question. He said that we could not afford to wait for that, and he gave his reasons. He said it was because there was a deadlock, and because it looked as if the deadlock was indefinite. He said that if we had waited until a settlement was arrived at in regard to this question this Japanese Treaty of Peace would have been indefinitely postponed.
With whom is the deadlock? Everybody has had much to say about the intransigence of the Soviet Union in the negotiations from 1947 onwards about this Treaty. I dare say that it was so, but whose intransigence is it which maintains this deadlock in the Far East? Why have not we a word to say about that, about this obstinate refusal to face the plain facts of life, about this determination to keep this unrest going, this state of war, this peril to all the world, arising out of the deadlock about the Chinese situation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman agreed with me a minute or two ago that China was rather outside the scope of this Debate, but he is still persisting in his argument.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is not this Peace Treaty an affront to the Chinese People's Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not prepared to argue that point. We cannot in this Debate discuss China's position.

Mr. Silverman: I submit that this point is vital to my argument. I am saying that it was not worth while to sign this Treaty now because it does not affect the international situation in the Far East one little bit. That was accepted by both Front Benches, by the hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as by my hon. Friends. The reply to that argument was: "Yes, but it is not our fault. We have to go on right now, and the reason why we did not agree before was because of the intransigence of one country in the negotiations from 1947 onwards, and the present deadlock." I am pointing out that the deadlock could have been broken if those who were negotiating the Treaty had taken the right line about it and had been as careful to condemn unreasonable intransigence on one side as they were to condemn unreasonable intransigence on the other side.
It is only in that way that the question becomes relevant. I certainly agree that the whole question of the history of China leading to where we are now would have been irrelevant to the debate, but this point I submit is not merely not irrelevant to the debate, but fundamental to it. If we think of the present situation with regard to China as reasonable and tolerable and one which cannot in any way be altered or changed by anything that we could do, then we are in favour of this Motion. If we think that the passing of this Motion tends to prolong the deadlock and that that very deadlock is at the root of the problem, then we are in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment. In that sense, this is the very root of the argument that we are having in the House of Commons this afternoon.
I say that this refusal of the United States of America to recognise the Chinese Government is the deadlock to which my right hon. Friend referred. There is no other deadlock. It is an unreasonable refusal, and it stands directly in the way of that very pacification of the Far East to which this Treaty was intended to contribute, but which everybody agrees it does nothing realistic about. If the attitude of this country's negotiators during these negotiations had been different, if they had said: "This is no Treaty at all. This will never pacify the Far East. You will never get any pacification of the Far East until the Chinese Government are properly recognised," they would have had their way.

Mr. Nutting: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is only fair and right to point out, while he may continue to blame the United States Government for being, as he puts it, intransigent and holding up a settlement in the Far East by refusing to recognise the Chinese Government in Peking, that about half the signatories of the Japanese Peace Treaty are of the same view as the United States of America on this matter, and that those signatories include Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot debate this point at any length, but in the present conjuncture of international affairs there will always be a great many nations who will listen to what Uncle Sam wants done and will find that it is just what they always wanted. There is no difficulty about that in present circumstances.

Mr. Nutting: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that Australia and New Zealand have not minds of their own in this matter and are merely following tamely at the heels of the United States of America?

Mr. Silverman: I am seriously suggesting that no man in his right senses, looking at this matter from the point of view of strict international law, unprejudiced by ideological preconceptions of any kind, would have the slightest doubt that the present People's Government of China is, in fact, the Government of China, that there is no other Government of China and that that Government are entitled, by international law, to be recognised. I am sure that that is the hon. Gentleman's own view too. It is certainly the view of the British Government and has been their view for nearly two years.
I say this is the right view and is the only possible view; that until the United States of America are prevailed upon in some way to see the facts as they are there is no possibility whatever of getting any pacification in the Far East, and that our concurrence in this hasty, improvised, ill-thought-out Treaty, negotiated in part with the wrong persons and signed in the end by the wrong parties, can only postpone the real settlement that we all hope to see.
I have been speaking for much longer than I wanted to, and I have not said some of the things I wanted to say. I would sum up my arguments by saying that this is a wholly bad Treaty. It does not contain the protective clauses that our industry is entitled to demand. It was made by negotiations with the wrong parties, at the wrong time, and it was signed at a conference which was attended by all the people who do not matter as well as one or two who do, and was not attended by many others who matter most importantly to it.
There can be no peace treaty with Japan without Chinese concurrence. From whatever point of view this Treaty is looked at, it is a wholly inopportune, futile, and indeed reckless proceeding. I hope that the House of Commons will take the opportunity afforded to it by today's debate and today's Motion to indicate its opinion that the Treaty ought not to be ratified.

6.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Wentworth Schofield: It is with a deep sense of humility that I rise to speak in this great and august Assembly. In conformity with custom, I ask the forbearance of hon. Members present during the short time that I seek to put my views before the House.
The constituency which has entrusted me with the honour of representing it here in Parliament is Rochdale, a town which lies on the north-eastern rim of the great industrial area of Lancashire. As might be expected in such a town, which was the birthplace of the Co-operative movement and the home of John Bright, and which was represented in Parliament by Richard Cobden for quite a time, its people take political questions and controversies seriously. Its industry is wide and varied, and among its principal industries is cotton spinning and weaving. Indeed, Rochdale is the third largest cotton-spinning centre in this country, where every variety of cotton is spun, from the coarse Indian and American varieties to the finer Egyptian qualities. No wonder, therefore, that the people of Rochdale are always interested about anything which has to do with cotton.
It is because of their interest in cotton that they are interested in the Japanese Peace Treaty. Most of them can remember the damaging effect which Japanese competition had upon the welfare of the cotton industry between the two wars. That competition did not derive its effectiveness from any superior skill on the part of its operatives or management. Precisely the opposite was the case. It derived it from the low labour standards of Japan, from the Japanese Government's manipulation of the yen and from subsidies and other methods which, in normal trade circumstances, would be regarded as inconsistent with proper commercial standards. It is nice to know, however, that the Japanese have given an assurance in this Peace Treaty that they intend to conduct their business with fair practices in the future.
It is true that industrial conversations have taken place between representatives of the industry in this country and representatives of Japanese industry, and that the hope has been expressed in them that Japan's economic recovery will be accompanied by the raising of Japanese labour

standards. Like this country, Japan is ill-endowed with raw materials, and because of that she is fundamentally dependent upon her export trade. In a world which has been starved of cotton goods because of six years of war, it was right that Japan should play a part in alleviating that shortage.
What we have to fear is the situation which will arise when that shortage has been met, when the world has a certain amount of trade to offer and the countries of the world are competing for it. In Rochdale, and in the cotton industry in particular, we are afraid that unbridled competition, based on low wages and the standards of the Orient, are far more likely to create unemployment and a lowering of British standards than raising the standards of the Japanese workers.
On the other hand. hon. Members on both sides of the House should not overlook one positive step which has been taken in the Peace Treaty. It is a step which has not yet been mentioned in the House, and one which, if full advantage is taken, may assist us to protect our interests in the markets of East and Central Africa. I refer to the remark made in the Treaty that Japan renounces her right under the Convention of St. Germain-en-Laye, which is perhaps more commonly referred to as the Congo Basin Treaties.
Most people who are connected with Empire and international trade have heard at one time or another of the Congo Basin Treaties. It is surprising how few have a really clear idea of their history and implications. The original Congo Basin Treaties were brought into being as far back as 1885 by what is known as the General Act of Berlin and they were modified five years later by the General Act and Declaration of Brussels.
The Great War of 1914–18 cancelled the Treaties as between the belligerent nations, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal and Russia on the one hand and Germany, Austria and Turkey on the other. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, it was stipulated that the Congo Basin Treaties should once more be brought into being. It was also stipulated that the defeated enemy nations of Germany, Austria and Turkey should not be allowed to subscribe to the Treaties as signatories, and it was at that time that Japan was brought into the Congo


Basin Treaties as a signatory for the first time.
The basis of the Treaties is that there shall be a full equality of trade in the territories of the Congo Basin and that any import duties which may be imposed shall apply equally to all countries irrespective of whether they are parties to the Treaties or not. In effect, they are instruments of free trade which open the trade door to a vast expanse of Central and Eastern Africa. By reason of their terms, Japan, the chief producer, soon found herself in a position to undercut all her rivals in those markets and soon found herself in a position where she had a virtual monopoly of those markets.
Unfortunately, no time limit was expressed in the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye, nor is there any provision in the Treaty whereby it can be revised or revoked except by 100 per cent. agreement on the part of its signatories. Seeing that the Treaty virtually presented Japan with a monopoly of the East African market, and that the Treaty could not be altered or revised without Japan's sanction, it has paid Japan to act as a sort of dog in the manger and by that means keep to herself the great bulk of the trade in East Africa and Central Africa. It actually took the defeat of Japan in war to remove her from the benefits of the Treaty.
By the provision in the Peace Treaty that Japan shall renounce her rights as a signatory power of the St. Germain-en-Laye Convention, that dog has now been taken out of the manger, and if the remaining signatory Powers now wish to revise or renounce the Treaty there is nothing to stop them, for Japan can no longer prevent it. I submit that that is a very definite step forward, but it is only a step, and it is no use unless it is followed up further, because it must be remembered that so long as the Convention of St. Germain-en-Laye is in being there is still nothing to prevent Japan from again monopolising those markets. The Japanese Peace Treaty does not at all alter Japan's ability to compete in those markets; all it does is to stop Japan from preventing the other signatory Powers from revising or revoking the Treaty.
Many in the cotton industry are wondering what further steps are now

contemplated to prevent Japan from again getting an undue share of the East African market. Many are wondering whether it is the intention to initiate talks in order to find out whether the other signatory Powers will be agreeable to either a revision or a cancellation of the St. Germain-en-Laye Convention. Among many of the signatories of the Convention it has been felt for some time that its cancellation is long overdue, and I humbly submit to the House that the question of cancellation should be looked into very carefully and considered with the other signatory Powers, because in that way only can we be certain of protecting our own rights in our own Colonies in East Africa.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Being, in a sense, a maiden speaker myself, I can congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) with more than usual feeling on the way he has come through his ordeal with such flying colours.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be aware that on the last occasion on which we discussed Japanese competition his predecessor in the House spoke on the subject, and that is perhaps evidence of the fact that in Lancashire at least the question of Japanese competition is regarded as being largely above the differences which normally divide our parties. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a most constructive and well-informed speech. I, at least, thoroughly enjoyed it, and I believe that the whole House did, and we shall certainly look forward to hearing him again, especially in debates on matters affecting the textile industry.
Hon. Members who have been in the last two Parliaments will not be surprised to find me speaking once again on the question of Japanese competition, although they may be surprised, as I am, at the exact spot from which I am speaking. When I last addressed the House in July I drew attention to certain features in the Japanese Treaty which were giving cause for alarm to my hon. Friends and to many thousands of people outside the House. On behalf of my colleagues in Lancashire and Cheshire I drew attention to our doubts as to whether the time was ripe for such a Treaty. I expressed doubt


whether there had been a real change of heart on the part of the Government of Japan. I questioned whether at that time there was an expanding world economy.
Unfortunately, our views did not prevail, and now the Treaty has been signed, and signed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and Grimsby (Mr. Younger); but at least we had the consolation of knowing that before the Foreign Secretary of that time put his signature to the Treaty he spoke very plainly to the assembled delegates about the attitude which this country would adopt if Japan were to revert to the practices which she pursued before the war. I believe that, now that Treaty is signed, an old chapter is closed and a new chapter is opened and what we have to do from now onwards is to concentrate not on attacking the Japanese Treaty as such but rather on the practical steps which can be taken, in pursuance of the signing of the Treaty, to protect the industries of this country against competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who commands the affection and respect of all of us in the House, spoke of the attitude of the trade unions to this question. My hon. Friend was talking about the trade unions' attitude to Japanese competition—and nobody thinks the Japanese competition is a good thing—but I do not think my hon. Friend has any right to say that it would be the wish of the trade union representatives in Lancashire that we should oppose this Bill and, in consequence, the ratification of the Japanese Peace Treaty.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The same thing applies the other way round. There ought to have been an opportunity for consultation.

Mr. Greenwood: I have taken the opportunity of consulting at any rate some of my local textile union leaders, and there is certainly no doubt in my mind that what they would want us to do is what I am suggesting, that henceforth we should concentrate on such opportunities as we have under the Treaty for protecting our people against unfair competition.
Hon. Members on this side of the House ought to remember that it has

always been the attitude of the Cotton Board, upon which both sides of the industry are represented, that it would be no use at all trying to include in the Japanese Peace Treaty clauses protecting us against Japanese competition.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friend will probably remember that between the two wars most of the leading Labour newspapers advocated in practically every edition, what we have been advocating this evening, particularly "Forward" and "New Leader." If he will look at the T.U.C. reports he will see that time after time at conferences pleas were made for precautions to be taken similar to those that we have been advocating tonight.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not think there is any difference between my hon. Friend and myself about that. Obviously, these precautions have to be taken. What we are saying, what the Cotton Board has said, and what both parties have said, is that it is no good trying to write these provisions into the Treaty and that what we must do is to rely on the conventions and colateral agreements which are provided for in the Treaty.
Some of my hon. Friends have put down an Amendment on the subject, and some hon. Members have interpreted what they believe the Amendment would produce if it were carried. I will give my interpretation. In the first place, it would mean the rejection of a Bill which has a very modest purpose, the provision of machinery for implementing such protection as the Treaty affords us. The second, and long-term, result would probably be, as hon. Members have suggested, that this country would have to refuse to ratify the Treaty, but I wonder what long-term benefit that would bring to the people of the industrial areas who will be subject to Japanese competition.
Under Article 23 of the Treaty it will be possible, even if the majority of the signatories refuse to ratify it, for the United States to bring the Treaty into effective operation. We all know that the only Power who can make the Treaty effective is the United States. The United States alone have occupying Forces in Japan until the Treaty is signed. The fact remains, whether we like it or not, that, even if we refuse to ratify it, the Treaty will still come into operation, and that is what makes me say that we have


to concentrate from now on upon taking advantage of the colateral agreements for which the Treaty provides.

Mr. Edward Short: Is my hon. Friend correct in saying that the Treaty could be brought into operation by the United States alone? Surely he meant to say that it required a majority of the States, including the United States?

Mr. Greenwood: The point is covered in Article 23 (b), which says:
If the Treaty has not come into force within nine months after the date of the deposit of Japan's ratification, any State which has ratified it may bring the Treaty into force between itself and Japan by a notification to that effect given to the Governments of Japan and the United States of America not later than three years after the date of deposit of Japan's ratification.
That means, of course, that if America decided to bring the Treaty into effect, America being the only Power which is in a position to operate the Treaty, that would, in fact, be bringing it into effective operation. I do not think that there is any question at all about that.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that such a bilaterial treaty would be of no value to anybody and that there is no reason to think that anybody would avail themselves of it? The important thing is to get a general settlement, and surely, if we did not go along with this abortive attempt at a general settlement, we would help all those who wanted to get a real settlement.

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend confirms exactly what I am saying. A bilateral treaty of that kind would be of no use to anyone—it would not be any good to us. What my hon. Friend has to persuade us of is that a general settlement is likely if we or any other countries refuse to ratify the Treaty.
Hon. Members have talked about the alarm which now exists in Lancashire. There are two responsibilities which lie heavily upon those of us who represent textile constituencies. I do not want to pretend that textiles are the only industry which is imperilled by the Treaty. There is a very large number of them, including the potteries, shipbuilding, light engineering, rubber footwear, and so on. Nobody will deny, however, that of the major industries of this country, none of them suffered quite so badly as the cotton

industry in the years before the War. But I do not think that at the moment we can afford either to spread alarmism in Lancashire or to relax the vigilance which hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have constantly exercised during the last four or five years.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said about the growing competition which is already beginning to be felt. So far it has not been very serious, but it is now beginning and, of course, the danger of what will happen in the next two or three years is very great indeed. I notice today that the Financial Editor of the "Manchester Guardian" is talking about the uneasiness in the industry and the fear that when the present temporary recession is past, Lancashire will have to face the full blast of Japanese competition.
There are many reasons why we are apprehensive. They arise both from internal factors—in Japan itself—and from external factors. It is, unfortunately, true that in spite of all the improvements that we have constantly been told have been made during the Allied occupation, the workers in Japan are still receiving less than before the war; and the difference between the rates of pay of Japanese and Lancashire workers is three times greater today than it was before the war broke out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, quoted an interesting article from "The Times." I was very flattered that he should do so, because I quoted it myself in extenso in the House on 25th July and later lent him the outting from which he was quoting. But there is, of course, even more recent information than that. In the "Financial Times" today is an article by Daniel Duxbury, in which he refers to antimonopoly laws and the labour legislation in Japan. He says:
Already, there are signs that at a convenient time industrialists will press for revision of these laws.
The anxiety which we are at present feeling is, therefore, by no means groundless.
Hon. Members have referred to the growth of Japan's population, but I do not think that anyone has referred to the fact that of Japan's growing population some 38 million are under 21 years of


age. This means, of course, that in the next five or ten years there will be an enormous labour force upon which she can draw. They have, probably, far more textile experts available to them than have any of the other Far Eastern countries.
Of the external factors, obviously—

Mr. W. Fletcher: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of the internal factors, would it not be wise to make clear—I am certain there is no difference on this—that the low cost of labour in Japan is due to the forces of nature rather than to the forces of man; that rice, which is the main diet, is one of the few foods which is not in short supply, and fish, which is the other one, is fairly abundant; and that it is not, therefore, man who is forcing down the cost of living? One of the causes is living in flimsy houses, on account of the earthquakes, which are built of necessity at very low cost. It adds to the danger, but it emphasises the point that the low cost is due to natural causes.

Mr. Greenwood: There may be a certain amount of truth in what the hon. Member says, but, at the same time, I do not think that he, in his turn, would deny that there has not been very much effort in the past on the part of the leaders of Japan to raise the extremely low standard of living of their people.
Of the external factors, clearly the most important is the closing of the Chinese market to Japan. There are reasons that lead one to suppose that that market may not be reopened in the near future; I will come to that presently. Others of Japan's markets which have disappeared are India and Indonesia, which have, set up textile industries of their own. If, as we all hope, the Korean war finishes in the near future, this will mean another difficulty for Japan, because Japan has been prevented from exporting a large amount of textiles to markets where we want to sell our textiles, by the fact that she has been selling them extremely profitably to United Nations Forces fighting in Korea. Indeed, during the past few years Japan has become, ironically enough, the arsenal of democracy.
But, at the same time, there are reassuring factors. For example, quite recently the Japan Cotton Spinners'

Association expressed the view that Japan should not expand its cotton spinning industry beyond six million spindles; they said that it would be better to take into account the potential world demand and the world's potential raw cotton holdings. That is a point of view which has been followed up by a number of American experts, including Mr. Murchison, the Economic Adviser to the American Cotton Manufacturers' Institute. Another somewhat reassuring factor is that a shortage of dollars has meant that Japan has had recently to cut her imports of raw cotton, and exports next year are likely to be slightly lower than this year; and this year also they have shown a slight decline upon the previous year.
Whatever reassuring factors there may be, we cannot, however, afford to leave things to luck. What I should have liked to hear this afternoon was rather more practical suggestions about the way that we are to go ahead with collateral agreements, with conventions, and with all the other devices with which we can protect our industry.
I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade a number of questions, with which, I hope, he will deal when he replies to the debate. I ask, first, a question about Article 14 (a) of the Treaty, dealing with reparations. As, I expect, the right hon. Gentleman will know, this has given cause for a good deal of alarm, both in this country, in certain of the Far Eastern countries, and even in Japan itself, because it is being interpreted in this way: It is thought that the Article as it now stands makes it possible for countries which were occupied by Japan to send raw cotton to Japan, to have it manufactured there into piece goods, and then to take the manufactured goods back, having paid only the cost of the raw materials. This would mean, of course, that that market was being closed to the products of this country, of India or of other countries and it would be possible for the country receiving reparations in this way to dump the goods in the neighbouring territories.
I cannot believe that that is the intention underlying Article 14. It is, of course, subject to negotiations, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain the Government's attitude towards it. At present, it seems to me to bear a


most lamentable resemblance to the way in which, in the Treaty of Versailles, we provided for reparations in coal, which was a major factor in bringing about the decline of our coal industry.
Secondly, what are the Government going to do about the conventions relating to unfair practices? My hon. Friends have mentioned a number of examples of the way in which the Japanese are pirating designs, copyrights, and so on. The position in the Treaty seems to me to be a little obscure. If the right hon. Gentleman can clarify it, that would be helpful not only to Members but to the trade and to the public outside. For example some conventions are specified in the declaration at the end of the Treaty. The Agreement for the Prevention of False Indication of Origin of Goods, for instance, is referred to as being specifically adhered to by Japan, but there is no mention of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or the Berne Copyright Convention.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Would it not have been more helpful if the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) had given his views on this when he made his speech, so that we would have had in mind what the late Government had intended?

Mr. Greenwood: The principles behind the Treaty are perfectly clear. What we are trying to discover now is how the Government are interpreting the provisions of the Treaty and what steps they are going to take to bring them into operation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale spoke about the possibility of having a conference of the Powers which are interested in cotton. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any possibility of having such a conference before cut-throat competition really gets going? Nobody here would want us to go back to the days of restrictive practices, when the one thing upon which we were all concentrating was stopping the sale of goods to people who needed them.
Surely, it would not be unreasonable to try to ensure that the development of the world's productive capacity of textile goods should be geared to the expansion of world trade. It seems to me that in a world where poverty is one of the great curses of the

time, there must be an almost limitless market for textiles if only we can create the purchasing power so that people can take advantage of them. I should like to see us going ahead on those lines and, perhaps, reaching agreement with the other Powers about conditions of manufacture, the ranges of goods on which countries should specialise, and the markets on which they should concentrate.
In the meantime, however, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would give his views on what is the Government's policy towards implementing Article 12 (a), which provides for the making of commercial treaties. As the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale said, we have already had one visitor from overseas—Mr. Hara—representing the biggest spinning concern in Japan, and I understand that before long Japanese Government delegates will be coming to this country.
I cannot help feeling that it would be in the interests of both parties if we could come to some agreement about a modus vivendi. It is no good Japan trying to expand beyond the world's capacity to absorb, and at the same time it is no good our trying to maintain competition in certain classes of goods, because in those classes cheapness, and not quality, is what counts. If we had such an agreement, surely it would be possible to set up some joint machinery to ensure that Japan adheres to the Treaty and to the collateral agreements that go with it.
I was surprised to find hon. Members on this side of the House suggesting that we should refuse Japan's admission to U.N.O. except on certain conditions to be laid down. To allow admission to U.N.O. to depend upon the will of employers in certain countries, would be a most regrettable state of affairs. I should have thought that if we wanted to get people to conform to the rules of a club, the best way to do it was to get them in rather than to keep them out. If we could have a commercial agreement of the kind I suggest, that would be a much more effective way of getting them to conform to these agreements than would be the method which my hon. Friends are suggesting.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am very much attracted by my hon. Friend's view that the way to get people to observe the rules of a club is to grant them membership


first. Would my hon. Friend say whether that doctrine applies to China as well as to Japan?

Mr. Greenwood: I have never hidden my view that China ought to be admitted to the United Nations. That has always been the view, too, of the leaders of the Labour Party, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend should have tried to imply that that was not the point of view either of his party or of myself.
The next question I want to put to the President is what is the attitude of the Government to most-favoured-nation treatment? He will recall that on 12th July my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) made a statement on that subject and I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the policy which was set forth on that occasion.
In the last resort, and here I come back to agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and even with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), it is the attitude of America which is going to count—America's attitude, both political and economic. On the political side, obviously, for many years to come the United States will have tremendous influence in Japan. Lancashire is wondering to what use that influence will be put.
There is China, an almost limitless market for Japanese goods, which has been slightly opened during the past few months. Of course, if it happens, as has been suggested in the debate may well happen and to which I remember the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), referring in July, that America tries to persuade, force or cajole Japan into recognising the Chiang Kai-shek Government, it may well be that the doors in China will be closed once again against Japanese goods.
I noticed in the "New York Times," on 19th November, a leading article in which reference was made to the need for Japan to have some outlet for her products. This is what the article said:
Many Japanese business men forsee an uncertain future unless they can trade with Communist China; neither treaty says they can't, but the heat will be on them not to try it.

That is a most ominous suggestion to come from so responsible a paper as the "New York Times."

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the hon. Member agree that the real danger—which has not been mentioned—is China, which is expanding enormously as a textile making country with many secondary industries and that competition will arise very soon to Japan from China supplying her own needs?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, China is very much in the same position as India and Indonesia, to which I referred. They will be cutting down their imports from Japan because of the development of their own industry. But this is another factor and I do not think one can minimise the importance of either of these factors. On the economic side it is clear that Japan will not be dangerous unless she has unlimited supplies of raw cotton and she cannot get unlimited supplies of raw cotton unless she gets them from the United States.
I do not think it an exaggeration to say that the future of Lancashire today is in the hands of the American people. I remember the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, saying, in the debate in July, what a formidable combination it would be—American capital and Japanese efficiency. There is today considerable doubt in Lancashire about what is to be the policy of America in the future. After all, last year, when America allocated supplies of raw cotton, Japan, Germany and Italy came off a good deal better than we did in this country. That is the kind of thing which makes peoples in the textile areas legitimately anxious about what the future holds.
Having spoken fairly bluntly about what Lancashire is thinking about America, I hope it will not be suggested that I have taken an anti-American line. I have not taken a party line, nor an anti-American line, but I have tried to say what the people of Lancashire are thinking. The relationship which has existed between Lancashire and America is a long one and a very strong one indeed. In 1862, at the height of the Civil War, 500,000 cotton workers in Lancashire were unemployed for lack of raw cotton and on New Year's Eve of that year working men called a meeting in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, to send a message to Abraham Lincoln to carry


on the struggle, even though it was bringing starvation to workers in Lancashire. On that occasion people of Lancashire gave their loyalty, trust, and confidence to the people of America, and I hope that in the next two of three difficult years that same loyalty, confidence and trust will be returned by the people of America.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I wish to congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) on his first speech from the Despatch Box. It was not only well constructed and well delivered, but, if I may say so, it was "as to the manner born." But, then, we remember he has been brought up in a very good school and all of us can join with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), who has always enjoyed the warm affection of every hon. Member in this House, in rejoicing at the success of his son.
The only thing I was wondering, when the hon. Member proceeded with his argument, was whether he was in favour of signing this Treaty, or not. He very rightly reminded us of his speech delivered in the last Parliament, and repeated the argument he uttered on that occasion. It seemed to me, I may be wrong, that he was convinced against his will, but remained of the same opinion still—namely, the opinion he was expressing earlier in the year, and that was against the Treaty.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I was trying to point out that it is really no good fighting battles which have been finished a long time ago; one must admit defeat on occasion and then proceed to do what one thinks is best in all the circumstances.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) does not take that view. He is quite convinced that it would be absolutely wrong to ratify this Treaty. I am not at all sure that that is also the attitude taken by the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. I think they rather recognised that on the whole it would be best to sign, but they wished to enter a protest. But that again was certainly not the view taken by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
Let us consider this Treaty as a whole. We are all agreed that Japan broke pretty nearly every rule of international law, behaved in a manner which we cannot forget even if we do forgive, and treated everyone not only cruelly but in a manner almost impossible to conceive. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne very rightly pointed out, she was the first aggressor after 1918, and continued that aggression until she was followed by the new aggressor in Europe, Herr Hitler. Then came the extraordinary action at Pearl Harbour, just at the moment when her Ambassador was talking to the American authorities. Then there was her treatment of prisoners, and so on.
We admit all that, but we also know that it is always best in a treaty not to be vindictive, not to over-punish, because that only means that resentment is borne by a subsequent generation and the consequences of that will have its effect in the history of those who follow. That has been the experience of those who made treaties too severe in their terms. Undoubtedly that was the experience after the Franco-German War and there were certain aspects in the Treaty of Versailles which led to a considerable amount of feeling being engendered in Germany and Central Europe.
I comment, as I did in the debate to which the hon. Member for Rossendale referred, on the fairness of this draft Treaty, the fact that there is no vindictiveness about it, nor punishment, while recognising of course that Japan has behaved in such a way that she really will have to work her passage back to warrant her being treated on terms of full equality with other nations. In the meantime, I remind the House that in the Treaty itself, and as part of it, she has been deprived of territories upon which she was dependent until 1945. She is deprived of every right which she had obtained—I agree by force—in China, deprived of Korea, deprived of Formosa, deprived even of the islands which are adjacent to her and immediately north. That in itself compels her to keep within the confines of the two islands, already overpopulated.
It is right that we should remind ourselves that she has also had to bring back from those other countries a great number of people who went to live in them and she has to depend entirely on those


two islands. She is today the most thickly populated area in the world, not even excepting ourselves or Belgium. The right way to ascertain that is not to take the area as a whole but to take the arable area and relate the population to that. In that way Japan easily overtops even ourselves and Belgium in density of population.
We have to remind ourselves also of her population figures and the amazing way in which they have grown. The population in 1930 was 50 million. In 1937 it had gone up by 20 million to 70 million and by November, 1950—these are the latest figures I have—it was 84 million. Obviously it is growing at the rate of one million a year and has gone up from 70 million in 1937 to 85 million in 1951.
Who can it benefit if this Treaty is not signed now? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that it would be just postponing the signing possibly for a few months.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Davies: Well, it would postpone it for a time, but surely we are all agreed that it was wrong that we should have delayed for so long, from 1945 until 1951, without making a treaty, or without making any effort to get a treaty, except the effort which was made by the previous Government from 1947 onwards.
The sooner a treaty of peace is made the better. We have been waiting, and the world has been waiting, all these years for an agreement. Surely the sooner it is made the better. What purpose could there be in postponing it any longer? The best that could happen would be that America would ratify it and there would be an end of the occupation by America. But, supposing America took the same view as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and did not ratify it, but continued the occupation? Would that be a desirable decision?

Mr. Silverman: If America took the same view as I take we would have a general settlement, which would be valuable, instead of a partial settlement, which will achieve no purpose at all.

Mr. Davies: How is that to be achieved? How do we know what is

the view of China on these matters? We have not been in consultation with them, although we have tried.

Mr. Silverman: That is my point.

Mr. Davies: Every effort has been made to get in touch, but even in regard to our own prisoners—

Mr. Silverman: Oh, no. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong about the facts. No attempt to negotiate the terms of this Treaty with Japan, or any treaty with Japan, has ever been made with China.

Mr. Davies: I accept that, but I would also point out that any effort to get into touch on those matters which concern us much more closely have so far failed. That being so, if the whole thing is thrown once again into the melting pot, what will be the result? No, in respect of the general lines of this Treaty, one should have no doubt whatever that the right thing to do is to ratify it as early as possible.
An objection has been made as to what will be the result of Japan being admitted into the comity of nations. There is, in the preamble, a promise that she will work her passage back and conform with the Declaration of Human Rights; which will mean greater freedom there, and without a doubt greater power for individuals, both in their democratic institutions and their trade unions. All that is provided for, but what else could we do other than put that in the preamble? If there is anything further put in we reduce the freedom of the country with which we are negotiating.
As I understand it that was already one of the main objections. The Joint Under-Secretary may be able to inform me—and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), will know much more about this than I or any of us—whether I am correct in understanding that the objection which India had to the Treaty, and to the signing of it, was that India did not think that Japan was being put upon a fair equality with everybody else. If we make a further restriction upon the power of Japan to run her own country the objection of India would be greater even than it is now.
So what are we to do? There is now a population of 85 million living in the


islands, having to import their food and raw materials. How are they to live? Having heard the speeches made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I understand that the position now is that we are not afraid of competition. They agree that these people in Japan have to live, and that they can live only by trading; they have to get their raw materials elsewhere and pay for their raw materials by selling their export goods, and by being free to go wherever they like to do so; and there would be no restriction or any complaint by anybody else if they did compete with us in those circumstances.
There can be no doubt now but that the desire, even of these three hon. Members, is that there shall be an expansion in that area so that those people may live. May I also remind them of the tremendous possibilities which there may be in Asia? There is to be found the bulk of the population of the world. We do not know, even within 50 million, what is the population of China. It is sometimes said to be 450 million and sometimes 500 million. None of us thinks that any settlement we make economically can in any way affect the tremendous populations of those countries. So there can be no doubt that there is no possibility of restricting in any way the power of the Japanese people to go on trading and buying and selling wherever they wish.
The only objection, apparently, is an objection to piracy of design, breaches of copyright and matters of that kind, but this is not a matter which we can put into a treaty. The right way to deal with that is either by making an agreement with the Japanese people or the Japanese Government, or still better, one prefaced by an agreement made by industrialists on both sides. Failing that, We must take whatever steps we can in our own country to deal with the matter.
Those surely are the only ways, and those are not matters which can be put into a general treaty such as this. If we did do so, and supposing there was a breach of them, what sanction could there be? What court could there be to try it? And how would we enforce that sanction?

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that there is no moral sanction in the world for any breach of treaty?

Mr. Davies: We have had two examples already, unfortunately, which have done a good deal of harm. There was one when, very rightly in my view, we referred the Persian matter to the Court at The Hague. It went from there to the Security Council, with a request for them to carry out the order of their Court, and the matter has been postponed, apparently indefinitely. There was another example with regard to South-West Africa. At the present moment there is no definite, precise, quick-moving sanction which would compel people internationally to keep to their agreements, and that is the trouble.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that there is no sanction which is of value or validity to compel people or nations to obey the obligations they have entered into about these matters, then that will apply as much to the treaties postulated by this Treaty as it would apply to this Treaty. If there is no sanction for a breach of this Treaty there is no sanction for anything, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that we cannot reach any agreement at all.

Mr. Davies: I have stated what is obviously the position as regards a general treaty. But in the case of a bilateral treaty we could put in some form of guarantee, or require the payment of a deposit, or do something of that kind, a breach of which would lead to a forfeiture. In a general agreement of this kind that is quite impossible. But I hope the House will agree that the Treaty ought to be ratified as it is a fair general one.
On the particular ground of competition, surely we are all agreed that it would be absolutely fatal now to restrict in any way the powers of these 85 million people. I would remind the House of their position. Their nearest neighbour, either north-west or west, is already Communist, whether it be Siberia or China. I have always understood it be be the doctrine of everybody in this House that we cannot defeat Communism


merely by the use of arms. We have to meet it by doing away with suffering, injustice and matters of that kind.
Surely, therefore, if we do not give these Japanese people an opportunity of restoring themselves to the comity of nations; of building up their own standard of living and of holding that position, then we shall be creating for ourselves a situation which will be far and away more dangerous than anything else of which I can conceive.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: The Japanese have just ratified this Treaty and we are the first country on the other side to debate it. I am inclined to wonder what will be the impression of Japan, and especially the Japanese Government, when they read this debate, at least so far as it has gone at present; or, if I may say so, up to the point at which the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) spoke, because I am in very close agreement with almost all he has said.
Until he spoke, we seemed to be dealing practically entirely with the question of the textile industry, as if that was the only thing which mattered in this Peace Treaty. We have rather skated over the fact that the Japanese themselves have accepted it—they had to, of course—and have been given certain terms which, in the end, may prove almost impossible for them to carry out. Their population is vastly increasing, but their territories have been cut down by nearly half. The possibilities of obtaining raw materials are nothing like so good as in the old days, and they are badly needed for any form of export market.
Only recently have the Americans allowed them to get some coal from China, whereas if they had to go on getting it through the United States it would have been at a very greatly increased price. Unless they can be allowed to trade with China in the near future it seems to me that it will be almost impossible for them to carry on, unless in some way they under-cut us. I do not believe they want to do that for one moment.
I believe that there is now in power a Japanese Government who are not the same type of people as were there before the war. I believe that the present Prime

Minister, Mr. Yoshida, is a great friend of this country. He has proved himself a friend of this country in the past. He was an Ambassador here for quite a long time before the war. He was sent here particularly, because he was so friendly to this country. And he was most outspoken in support of this country, so far as it was possible for him to be, up to the commencement of the war. Other members of the Japanese Government are known friends of this country. But one would get the impression from everything which has been said this evening that there has been no change whatever and that all that has been happening in the last four or five years has been an absolute waste of time.
Surely these Japanese, or a large number of them, have been working hard to develop the country and to develop a new kind of life. Certainly when some of us M.Ps. went to Japan in 1947 we saw very serious attempts being made by a very large number of Japanese people to improve the position of Japan. Whether that has been achieved or not is as yet uncertain, but at least a lot of people think it has been done to a large extent.
Things have been said by the mover and the supporters of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill about slave labour, and so on, but no one who has been in Japan, either recently or before the war, would recognise some of the things described. It is true that there are millions of people living in different parts of Japan at a very low standard, much lower, than our standard of life, but they do not necessarily want the same things as we want. Factory owners in Japan, both before and after the war, have concentrated on giving people the things they wanted in kind. We may prefer to have them in cash. We may prefer to have council houses at a very high cost, but in Japan factory owners give the people houses for no cost at all; and they are fairly clean ones and well looked after.
One could argue on that point for a long time, but at least it is not quite fair, and it is especially nonsensical if one is trying to talk about competition, to say they are employing slave labour—

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Teeling: The hon. Member has been up and down the whole evening—well, once and not any more.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), is not here and the hon. Member is quoting from him. But in what my hon. Friend said about slave labour he was not drawing upon his own experience; he was quoting from an American source.

Mr. Teeling: Even Americans can be wrong. But the hon. Gentlemen who spoke and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) rather gave the impression that it is the Americans who over the last four or five years, have been preventing improvements. Am I wrong about that? Did not the hon. Member refer to the question of strikes being stopped by the Americans—strikes to better themselves? The point is that if the people have been trying, as I believe they have been for some years, to better their conditions, surely it is incumbent upon us, in talking about this Peace Treaty, to try to act in the same way and hold out the hand of friendship to them.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out that this Bill concerns the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and that trade matters should come later and be discussed in greater detail, and that we should deal with other topics as well. I am most glad that we have had this first opportunity of a debate, so early in this Parliament, because, in the last Parliament, and more especially in the Parliament before, it was almost impossible for anybody interested in the Far East to get a day for a debate on the Far East. If we did, the debate eventually would narrow down to Malaya and Korea, so that Japan never came into it at all. Now, at long last, we are taking a day to debate Japan, and I hope that we may be able, later, to have debates on other subjects, such as the textile questions affecting Lancashire and Yorkshire, but not only on that tonight.
Let us show that we can hold out the hand of friendship to Japan, which is not so very differently placed to ourselves. We are islands off the Continent of Europe; they are islands off the Continent of Asia. We have to trade with Europe and are most anxious to do so; so are they anxious to have the opportunity of trading with China and with Asia as a whole. We badly need raw materials; so do they. We seriously lack finance; so do they. Our population is immense, and

so is theirs. We can only live by trade or colonisation, and they can only do the same, though we hope it will not be by colonisation, but by trade.
A large number of the men who are now controlling Japan, including Mr. Yoshida, the Prime Minister, and many of those associated with him, have been educated in this country. They are old friends of this country and they were, in many ways, linked up with those early days of Lord Lansdowne when we were the allies of the Japanese. Today, these people expect that we will hold out the hand of friendship to Japan, and I think we could very well do it again tonight.
There are various things which Japan wants. She is looking to us at present for guidance in the development of many aspects of her life—her Parliament, her trade unions, and so on. I do not believe the Japanese think that the United States is the country which they could best copy. With 86 million people in her small islands, with no raw materials, she cannot be compared with a country like the United States. We are in a more similar position to that of Japan, and we should get the Japanese to come here and study our people and our institutions.
I think, also, that Japan herself might make a gesture at the present moment which would do much to remove the alarm now felt by people in Yorkshire and Lancashire. First of all, there is the question of the treatment of prisoners during the war, on which subject we have just listened to a brilliant maiden speech. I believe that Japan herself, whether as regards to money or otherwise, will be prepared at the present time to make a gesture to the people of this country, and to make an admission that they did wrong in that direction and at that time.
Second, there is the question of the bondholders, and Japan might very well help there. I know thousands of these bondholders, not City of London people, but very poor people, holding very few of these bonds, all over the country, who have received not one penny by way of interest for many long years. I realise that we cannot now obtain the money with which to pay back to these people either their capital or the accumulated interest, but, after this Treaty is ratified, which is what the Japanese promised to do, we should get them to begin to pay interest again to these poor people. That


is one of the things which the Japanese themselves ought to do of their own accord and, if they did it, it would give some of the people of Lancashire some hope for thinking that, later, some rules and regulations might be laid down for the future that would be kept, like the paying of debts.
In addition to the textile question, there is the fact that the City of London also has interests in Japan on such questions as insurance, banking and shipping. Surely our Government will bear in mind that these industries have also great interest in trade with Japan? Just because we are watching over the textile industries, we cannot postpone indefinitely coming to some agreement with Japan about other industries as well, which might well involve the granting of most-favourednation rights.
There are two other points upon which I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade with regard to negotiations that have been going on in the past. Article 18 of the Treaty deals with outstanding pre-war claims, but the Treaty only imposes an obligation to consider on their merits claims for loss or damage to property or for personal injury or death arising before the existence of a state of war. We consider that there should be an obligation on the Japanese to meet such claims as had already been admitted by them before the war, but not paid.
Some of us feel that there has been one most important omission from the Treaty, and that is that no provision is made regarding discriminatory taxation against the foreigner. There is not, in fact, any relief from the payment, in part, of Japan's war costs. It seems to me that it is very necessary now that something should be done to mitigate this discrimination. We are going to have a large number of English people living in Japan and trading there, and they have to live at the highest standard of living in the country. They will therefore have to pay the highest form of taxation, which will very largely be for the repayment of war damage, and so on. I refer to internal war damage, and I do not think that that cost should be forced to be partly borne by Britons.
There is one last point on which I should like to ask the Government a question. We have been told a great deal about the development of trade unions.

I was out there at the end of 1947, when it was quite obvious that the Japanese trade unions were very much in their infancy, and there was a very slow process of development going on. At that time, some of us suggested that some trade unionists of standing in this country should go out on a fairly long visit to Japan in order to give the people there some idea how to develop a trade union movement. When we came back, we suggested this to the Prime Minister of the day, who agreed that it was a good idea.
So far as I know, nothing further has been done about it, and I am wondering whether this would not be an appropriate moment, when the Peace Treaty is about to be ratified, to send out some of our trade union representatives to help forward this development.
Finally, I would beg of the House to realise that this is not a debate on the textile industry as such, but on the ratification of a Peace Treaty with Japan. Let us show the Japanese the hand of friendship and help them to build up their trade unions, and let us recognise that they are people who wish to work with us and who want to work with those who used to be their Allies.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), knows a good deal about Japan, and it is always interesting to listen to his speeches on this subject, but it seems to me that he is prepared to take the view that this Treaty errs on the side of severity. I do not think he would regard that as putting it too high; that is what he seems to suggest. I think the hon. Gentleman must realise that, in expressing that view—which may be right or wrong, although I think it is wrong—he is representing a very small minority indeed in the country.
Those of us who feel anxieties about the provisions of this Treaty, and who take this opportunity of expressing them, are entirely prepared to agree that it would be quite wrong to introduce into this Treaty any provisions that are restrictive on Japanese trade, commerce and manufactures. I also realise, as has been stated by many hon. and right hon. Members, that in the subsequent resolutions which are to be discussed, and in the subsequent discussions which are to take place, a great number of opportunities will, no doubt, arise to represent


British interests in matters affecting this country.
Our complaint is not that restrictive provisions are not put into the Treaty nor that there are no saving clauses and the possibility of action being taken by subsequent resolution, but that this Treaty goes out of its way to give a fillip and an advantage to Japanese industry which may be detrimental to Lancashire and to the interests of British industry. The Treaty seems to go out of its way to give what we think is an unreasonable advantage to this great competitor, and I cannot believe that the interests of the British textile industry were on this occasion sufficiently brought home to those responsible in the matter.
It seems to me that the matter is brought forward most clearly by Article 14 (a) which deals with reparations. What is the position under this Article, which, I submit, is of such importance that the House should take cognisance of it? That Article recognises the fact that there are countries which have been the victims of Japanese aggression and which are entitled to receive reparations. That is recognised in the Treaty. These countries are by this Article given the opportunity of providing Japan with raw cotton to be processed and manufactured and then to be returned to them free of cost, no charge being made for the processing in Japan.
That is a most serious matter for anyone concerned with the interest of the textile industry of Lancashire. A country like Indonesia—to mention only one of many—which has suffered at the hands of Japan and which, in previous years, may have been an important part of our own overseas market in South-East Asia for cotton manufactures is, by this provision in the Treaty, given the opportunity of buying raw cotton in the world market, shipping it to Japan, receiving it back as a manufactured product at the raw material price, and then is in the position to sell the manufactured commodity in the world market at prices far less than those ruling for that type of commodity.
That, it seems to me, is a very grave matter indeed, and one of which the House should be fully cognisant. It is fair to say that this means giving in this important part of the world a tremendous trading advantage to the Japanese, a part

of the world in which, in honest competition between countries, it was perfectly reasonable to hope in due course for an expansion of exports of British textiles. It is an advantage which the provisions of the Treaty give gratuitously, unreasonably and absurdly to Japan having regard to all that she has done, and this at a time when Britain's competitive position in the textile industry is already becoming extremely difficult.
The volume of Japan's exports of cotton goods already exceeds the volume of British exports of those goods. The figures for the second quarter of 1951 show that British exports of cotton goods amounted to 247 million square yards while Japan's amounted to 342 million square yards. British manufacturers are finding that the volume of new orders for their products is already beginning to fall off, and that the samples of Japanese cloth are very markedly better than they were before the war.
The British industrialist and the British textile worker must also bear in mind the fact that, as things are at present, their competitors in Japan have at present not only the advantages to which I have referred, but the added advantage of being comparatively free of the taxation burden which we have to bear for purposes of defence. Moreover, all that is happening in Japan and the Far East is giving impetus to this competitive effort by post-war Japan in the cotton and textile market because, in large measure, she finds herself deprived of her traditional market in the mainland of China and because she finds her silk industry a much less profitable activity than it was before owing to the development of nylon and rayon.
These two last factors are encouraging Japan to concentrate upon the manufacture and export of cotton goods to new markets. It is because these things are happening that in the 12 months since the limitation of four million spindles was raised by the Americans, Japan has increased the number of spindles installed in her factories to 5,055,000.
My purpose in drawing attention to these matters is to try to emphasise to the House what are the factors in the Far East which are contemporary with this, as I see it, gratuitous and unnecessary action of ours, under the terms of the Treaty, in encouraging them and


giving them an advantage in their textile trade. It seems to me that by Article 14 (a) we are giving them an opening in markets where we hoped to compete with them for the good of our own industry. They are being given the chance to build up goodwill and a capacity to sell their manufactured products at prices with which it will be impossible for us to compete.
The textile industry of England is taking the view that in the coming years there is a good prospect of building up much more co-operative and friendly relations than before between themselves and the Japanese textile industry; and I would be the last to deny that it is extremely desirable that there should be greater co-operation than before between the Japanese textile industry and our own.
But I do not think it is a good basis for co-operation that in this Treaty we should go out of our way, as it seems to me we are doing, to give such immense trading advantages to the Japanese. History supports the view, and I am entirely in favour of it, that one should be generous to a defeated foe. It nearly always pays, but in this Treaty we are being generous to a fault and we are giving a fillip and encouragement to Japan which the circumstances do not warrant.
I come now to the wider aspects of the problem with which the House has to deal. The reason why this extremely generous attitude is being adopted by the Western Powers, of course, is not that there is any sudden conversion to the view that it is wiser and better to be generous to a defeated foe. The reason why it is happening is that there is believed to be a threat from the U.S.S.R. It is because it is deemed necessary to have an effective policy of military containment of the U.S.S.R. that for the first time for so long the Western countries have adopted the principle that it is well to be reasonable and generous in one's treatment of a defeated foe.
One feels that the treatment of Japan by the United States and ourselves would have been very different if our relations with the U.S.S.R., and American relations with them, had been better in the postwar years than they have proved to be. Apart from the problem of trade it is in

this connection also that I feel some anxiety about the Treaty. In the foreign affairs debate last week many of us on this side of the House had the impression that the present Government have their own conception of the meaning of the generally accepted formula "negotiation from strength." The present Government appear to think that that means building one's forces until one can compel a favourable settlement. If I may draw a parallel between East and West, for example, it is not thought that German re-armament could be modified in response to U.S.S.R. proposals for free elections in Berlin or in Germany. It is not thought of as a bargaining counter.
That outlook is not acceptable to me or to many of my hon. Friends. I understand, and so I think do many of my colleagues, by negotiation from strength that one builds up one's forces until one can negotiate on a level and between evenly balanced Powers. That is quite different from building up forces to the point where one can impose one's will. I understand negotiation from strength as meaning a negotiation where we are not handicapped by having behind us a relative weakness in armament.
I am speaking now of something far greater than the threat to the textile industry to which I have referred. There is a grave danger that Russia, seeing the build-up that is going on to the west of her and to the east of her, of which this Treaty is a symbol, may come to regard the Western proposition of negotiation from strength as constituting a threat to herself which may lead her to indulge in an adventure and a folly which would bring disaster upon the whole civilised world.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member refers to the present Government's policy of negotiating from strength. Surely he appreciates that the policy of the Government is much the same as that of the late Government. After all, the late Government introduced the re-armament programme and the Estimates to which the House agreed, and it seems a little unfair to pass the buck.

Mr. Irvine: I think it would be out of order to develop that point further than I have done.
I am suggesting that the debate on foreign affairs last week may have shown


that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a slightly—perhaps more than slightly—different interpretation of the formula of negotiation from strength than that entertained on this side of the House. I feel I must leave it at that. I regard this Treaty with foreboding both because of its likely consequences upon a vitally important British industry and because of its possible effect upon world peace.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. W. W. Astor: I rise to support this Treaty because I consider it a wise one, and I have formed that view through no illusions about Japan. The last time I visited Japan was as secretary to the Earl of Lytton, Chairman of the League of Nations Commission of Inquiry into the Manchurian aggression. I personally drafted part of the report which outlined and condemned that aggression in no unmeasured words.
Yet I think that this is a wise Treaty. We have to consider the peculiar nature of Japan, this nation of 85 million people who were shut from the world from the days of Charles II to 1870, and who then, by this extraordinary effort of adaptability, turned themselves into a modern Power to oppose what they felt were the forces of European militarism and aggression. Is it a wonder that the process of civilisation is superficial? There was a state of feudal barbarity in Japan almost within living memory.
There is in Japan this extraordinary mixture of qualities in the people. On the one hand there are the Spartan and Stoic qualities of courage, industry, patriotism and self-discipline made graceful by charming manners, cleanliness, hospitality and probably the most acute sense of duty of any nation I know. Then there is the dark side, the barbaric element, the side of brutality, of ferocity and of cunning, and the emotional instability which some people explain as being the result of their living on an island where there are four major earthquakes every year.
There is this extraordinary divergence in the Japanese character which makes it almost impossible to understand how the Japanese peasant, who is such a charming person in a kimono in his own country, can be such a barbaric brute when in uniform outside his own land.
There are in Japan these two elements—the liberal element composed mainly of people who have foreign and largely British interests, those who have been the entourage of the Emperor and the Court, the elder diplomats, many of the great industrialists, many naval men and the intellectuals; and on the other side the fanatical element—the young soldiers, the adventurers and politicians, and behind them the secret societies which have gone in for assassination on a widespread scale. It was the moderate elements that stood up to the campaign of assassination on the part of the fanatical elements.
That nation, with such a peculiar complexity, has inherently the most difficult problem in the world, with a population of 84½ million people which is increasing at the rate of a million a year. Since the war Japan's population has increased by the equivalent of the entire population of New Zealand. There is always this deafening patter of tiny feet behind all Japanese policy.
It has the same problem as we have in this country. It is a nation which has fewer raw materials than we have, and which has, either by emigration or by trade, to keep its population from starving. Emigration can bring no solution. There are not enough ships in the world to carry the people whom the families of Japan are producing every year. No one who knows the difficulties that we have had both with Jewish and Arab settlement in the Middle East can imagine for a moment that emigration can make any difference to this terrible population problem in Japan. They have got to have the British solution of trading so that they can import raw materials and food which will prevent starvation in that country. Unless the Western world can give them opportunities for trade, they will go back again into the paths of aggression and lean towards Communism.
We must never under-estimate the attraction of the mainland of Asia to Japan. It is her natural market, just as Europe is our natural market and just as the United States is the natural market for Canada. If they become solely dependent on that for the outlet of their goods they will undoubtedly eventually joint the ranks of the Communist part of the world. I remember Sir Charles Eliot, the greatest ambassador we ever had in Japan, who lived in retirement at Nara,


saying to me that only when he retired did he realise how strong the Communist element in Japan was. Today there are 100,000 registered Communists in Japan. In 1928 one bookshop in Tokio sold 300,000 copies of that unreadable work "Das Kapital." Japan would be as great a prize as Germany for Russia to get into her part of the world, and an infinitely easier one to get into the other camp, unless on our side we show the greatest wisdom.
What is the alternative to this Treaty? Is it a permanent military occupation? America has not the troops, nor have we. Is it permanent subsidy of the Japanese economy by the foreign taxpayer? The Americans are unwilling, and we could not possibly afford to do it. They would be wholly unreliable in a crisis if we made the answer entirely a military occupation.
People have criticised this Treaty but, as Mr. Foster Dulles has pointed out, there are many stipulations that the victors can force a defeated nation to sign but that is not the same thing as being able to force a nation to carry them out in the years after the Treaty has been signed. It is far better to get, as in this Treaty, a genuine settlement accepted by both sides if we want to keep Japan in the non-Communist part of the world.
This problem of trade competition is one which we have to face, not only from Japan but as a result of the industrialisation of Asia. We shall get the same competition from India and Pakistan, and eventually one day again from China. Nor can we control the markets where those goods are sold. South America and Asia are not under our control, and if we should ever exclude the goods of Asia from our Colonial Empire to a degree beyond what was to the mutual benefit of the Colonies and ourselves, we shall lose those Colonies in the same way as we lost the American colonies. It would not be the way to consolidate the Empire, but the way to break it up.
This Treaty is a better Treaty than the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) admitted. We have Article 8 (b) which deprives Japan of all rights which she had—very most favoured nation treatment—in the past, and we have the undertaking in Article

12 (a) which commits them to negotiate with us as to the terms on which their goods come into the areas of our control. What this House has the right to expect of the Government and the President of the Board of Trade is that they will pursue the most active negotiations to insure us against the unfair competition and practices such as infringing our copyright patterns and imitating our designs and so forth, and we shall watch the Government carefully to see that they do it properly.
We need have no illusions that Japan will immediately be turned into a democracy, but there is a very limited amount of education which can be imposed by a foreign occupying Power. Any nation will accept for a short time after defeat ideas imposed from outside, but if we impose a military occupation too long those ideas which we try to impose will be associated with the humility of foreign occupation and we shall bring about just the reverse effect to that which we desire.
People say that democracy can be imposed by force. It reminds me of a headmaster of Eton who once preached on the Beatitudes. He said, "'Blessed are the pure in heart.' Boys, you must be pure in heart. If you are not I shall flog you." It is ridiculous to say "Japs, you must be democrats; if you are not we shall conq you." It must be a process of self-education.
It is not only the force which democracy was able to produce in the war which will have an effect upon Japan. It is also the magnanimity and wisdom with which we act in peace. We have to re-establish that great British influence which used to exist in Japan, and I ask the Foreign Office to think very carefully whether it should not establish again a cadre of Far Eastern specialists within the Foreign Service.
In the old days the Japanese Consular Service devoted their whole career to that country, and they were invaluable in understanding the people whose language, religious thoughts and writing are so peculiar and difficult. Even if we do not re-establish that service in the old form, I suggest that there should definitely be a body within the Foreign Service the members of which should devote the first years of their career to getting a thorough understanding of Japanese language and mentality.
It is impossible to get any understanding by moving to Japan consuls whose previous experience has been in South America, Russia or anywhere else. We have to get our specialists who really understand these extraordinary and complicated people. I ask the Government to take the utmost care in the choice of their Ambassador.
It is not the blameless Consul-General or the intelligent Foreign Office clerk who is very good at files who always makes the best ambassador in an Oriental country. Indeed, the disasters which we have suffered in the last 15 years in certain countries have sometimes been associated with that type of representation. Let us get our consular experts, our Japanese experts, to advise us, but let us send a strong personality, a man of great character and distinction, to an Oriental country. Let us get him from inside the diplomatic service if possible, but if that is not possible, do not let us be afraid to choose him from outside.
We have to re-establish British influence in Japan, not only for the purpose of trade and to see that we get a proper deal, but also from the wider political aspect. The only time Japan was a peaceful country was during the days of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. After all, Japan and ourselves are in fundamentally the same position. We are over-crowded islands, each at one end of the great land mass of Eurasia; and we both have a common interest to see that that great land mass is not under the domination of Russia. That has brought us together in the past. It is the common interest which can bring us together again.
In dealing with Japan, we have many advantages. They speak English as their second language. Many Japanese were educated here. The Japanese, who revere their own monarchy, have the utmost respect for the British monarchy. They try to model their monarchy on ours. We have great cards in our hands if we choose to play them. I say to my Japanese friends that it is for them to recognise that in this Treaty the democracies have followed the great principle of Wang Tao—the kingly way, the way of wisdom and the way of magnanimity; and it is for them to prove that this way on our part is not mistaken.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. John Paton: I do not know whether or not we have just listened to a maiden speech. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. W. W. Astor) has been absent from the House for a very long time and I do not know whether he has spoken since his return, but in any case I congratulate him on an extremely interesting speech, delivered with remarkable fluency, with a considerable amount of which I found myself in no disagreement at all.
It is not surprising that a debate of this kind should have been concentrated to a very large extent upon the supposed effects of this Treaty upon our trade. One expected and understood that. I myself share to a very considerable extent the anxiety of hon. Members who spoke at the beginning of the debate, and who represent the textile and pottery industries, about the effects of Japanese competition on these industries. But when it was said, as someone did say, that this Treaty is creating problems for our trade, it seems to me that we are falling into a most extraordinary misunderstanding of the position.
The Treaty itself is creating no problems for our trade. The problems exist. What the Treaty does with regard to our trade is to try in certain ways to ease the burden which we must expect in the future from this revival of competition from the Orient—because we shall get it, willy-nilly; and that competition will affect us and will severely hamper the operations of our own industries whether or not the Japanese keep their workers employed on reasonable standards of life and under good labour conditions and whether or not they obey all the conventions about copyright, designs, and everything else.
What we have to face is that Japanese trade, like German trade, is once more a factor in world trading markets, and Britain has to be able to assert her place as an industrial nation in the teeth of the competition of these other nations—and not by any idea of trying to restrict those nations by clauses in a so-called Peace Treaty. That sort of proposition—by restrictions in a treaty—is completely untenable. The former Foreign Secretary reminded us that we tried it on a large scale in the famous Versailles Treaty, and every hon. Member on this side of the House was a keen critic and opponent of what the Versailles Treaty stood for.


When we give our adhesion today to a Peace Treaty of this liberal nature for Japan we are expressing the traditions of our own Socialist movement—an international affair—and we have no right to depart from them.
A legitimate case can be made against some of the practices which were mentioned today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It is true that we must do everything in our power to try to ensure that the competition we shall meet from the Japanese is no longer based on intolerable and inhuman conditions of living and of labour. How are we to secure this? We cannot secure it by putting what I think were called "statements" into the Peace Treaty. We can secure it in only one way. There is only one effective guarantee that in future the Japanese workers will have tolerable conditions of life and of labour, and that is by the organisation of the Japanese workers. There is no other solid foundation upon which such things can be built.
Some hon. Members who spoke earlier said the effects of Japanese competition were already being felt in the pottery and textile trade of this country. They seemed to be wholly unaware of the fact that at present Japanese working conditions approximate fairly well to Western standards in many ways. The Japanese are still working under the labour, industrial and welfare code which was established during General MacArthur's régime and which, on paper, gave them one of the most advanced industrial and welfare codes anywhere in the world.
It is true that this code is now under attack. It is being threatened, but so far as I am aware—and I think I am fairly well aware of the existing conditions, because Japan and the Far East is a study of mine—these industrial conditions are still in existence. It may have been noticed by hon. Members who listened to one of the quotations by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who I think quoted from "The Times," that the Tokio Chamber of Commerce are demanding a revision of the labour code so that hours can be extended from eight to 10. That quotation from the Tokio correspondent of "The Times" confirms what I am saying—that at the moment the conditions are, on the whole, far more favourable than ever they were pre-war; and yet our

Pottery and textile industries are beginning to squeal.
Here we have to face something of very great importance indeed, but we may as well face it. With the finest labour code and welfare code in the Orient—because I include in this what was called the social content of the code—there will inevitably be, for an indefinite period of time, a low cost differential simply because of the climatic and other conditions existing in those islands.
It is no doubt true that in the future the Japanese worker may well cultivate more and more a great many of the demands made by the Western worker for all kinds of amenities. He is doing it now. But with all that he demands in that way he has traditional ways of living and all kinds of houses, and has customary modes of clothes, customary foods, all sorts of things which affect his ideas about desirable living standards. Therefore, we shall probably have always to face this fact about our competition in matters of trade with the Orient, that whatever we do by international regulation about living standards there will probably always be that low cost differential due to the fact that they are workers in the Orient instead of workers in the Occident.
What can we do about it? I think we can do a great deal more than we have done with regard to helping the development of a powerful and responsible Japanese trade union movement. I was in Japan with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), who spoke a little earlier on, on a Government mission to that country in 1947, and I remember putting this very point to General MacArthur in an interview we had with him. It is no longer highly confidential or secret, since that interview was so long ago, so I may as well disclose it.
At that time in Japan the trade union movement was being moulded through S.C.A.P., through the American labour organisers of the A.F.L. and the C.I.O., the American counterparts of our T.U.C. General MacArthur told me that he was having difficulty in getting the necessary number of specialists in labour organisation to do what was necessary in Japan. I suggested to him at once that I had no doubt that if he applied to the British T.U.C. he would get all the expert advice and help he could ever possibly want.
He answered, of course, with an abrupt refusal. He was compelled to tolerate the presence of the people from the A.F.L. and the C.I.O., but he made up his mind quickly he was not going to have British trade unionists there. I am sure that if now our Government were to make the suggestion that expert trade union help and advice would be willingly given from this country the Japanese trade unionists themselves would welcome it and use it. That is one way in which we could render effective assistance.
There is a point on the question of copyrights of designs, and so on, which seems to me very important. It seemed to emerge from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Neither of them and, so far as I have heard, nobody else in the House has discovered any way in which any form of enforcement can be employed to compel a defaulting Japanese industrial system to conform to any international convention it signs with regard to such things as copyright of designs.
There is one sanction that could be employed, but it would require concerted action by the Western Powers. All of us know very well that Japan is almost wholly dependent upon the Western world for the essential raw materials she must have to keep her industries going and make her competition effective. Since that is so, in the face of default by the Japanese—persistent default—in these international conventions affecting copyright and the rest, it would be wise and sound for the Western Powers in concert, particularly Britain, the United States, and the British Commonwealth, to inform Japan that unless she is prepared to honour her international commitments in these respects we shall feel ourselves entitled to withhold raw materials she must have if she wishes to compete.
That seems to me to form an economic sanction which could be employed, I think legitimately, in co-operation by the Western Powers in order to get rid of that bane from which we suffered before the war of the unfair character of so much Japanese competition.
I have listened today to a lot of things that seemed to me to betray little or no understanding at all of the situation in

which the Japanese actually stand. We have to recognise as a people that just as we in Britain have to export our goods in Britain all over the world if we are to feed and clothe ourselves, even more so that people must export or die; and the first thing that one must do in coming to this problem is to understand that vital point. Here are people of incredible industry, of great technical competence. in the Orient.
Here are these people, crowded together into totally inadequate space on four main islands and a number of smaller ones; in an area deficient in food, in raw materials of all kinds; a people now deprived of their empire, deprived of any possibility of emigration since every country in the world has shut out its emigrants.
These people must have the right to earn their bread and their necessary supplies of raw materials and so be given a proper and legitimate place in world trade. If we were to give anything less, by restrictive practices of any kind, we should create a situation that would be completely explosive, that would find relief finally in a last shock that would probably disturb the equilibrium now existing between the nations of the world.
This situation has to be faced as the central starting point of our thinking, and whatever we do to try to protect legitimately our own interests we must always—particularly we on this side of the House, who are Socialists and internationalists—recognise the legitimate right of the Japanese also to live, as we want to live, in peace and amity, and allow them the necessary material resources to make that life good.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton), obviously has great knowledge of Japan gained at first hand. He, like other hon. Gentlemen who have been to that country and have known about it at first hand in recent years, spoke with considerable sympathy towards the Japanese in respect of the problems confronting them. I believe that all of us, even those of us who represent parts of England where disasters came because of Japanese competition, recognise that there is a Japanese problem. But I do not think that those of us, on either side


of the House, who have seen our friends out of work and the misery brought by Japanese competition can speak with the objectivity on this matter which those like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, North, and some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, can, who—

Mr. L. M. Lever: What about Lancashire and the cotton workers, and their being unemployed? Everybody seems more concerned about the Japanese workers. What about Lancashire's cotton workers?

Mr. Fort: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was saying that those hon. Members who have spoken with sympathy for Japan cannot expect those of us who have seen our friends out of work in Lancashire or in the Midlands to speak with that calm, Olympian objectivity with which they have. Although we recognise that there is a difficulty in respect of Japan, we must remember that we shall not see peace in the Orient or that stability in Japan which is certainly desired if it is achieved at the expense of our own fellow countrymen.
We have been given many examples today of how Japanese competition is returning and showing itself in the same forms that it did before the war—by increased output, evil trading practices, and, what is perhaps even more formidable, certainly in the textile industry, by cloth being produced today in Japan of good quality for the purposes for which it is intended.
There is a curious illogicality in the minds of some hon. Members opposite. Here is a country—Japan—producing goods which the poorer parts of the world want, at prices which they can afford, and in this House opposite us is a party which is always telling us that one of its greatest desires is to improve the standard of living in what it describes—wrongly, I think—as the backward and undeveloped parts of the world. When the problem of raising the standard of living in such countries has been discussed, I have often heard hon. Members opposite say that our own people must be prepared to make sacrifices in order to improve these poor living parts of the world. This afternoon we are discussing a Treaty with

Japan which will do exactly what hon. Members opposite apparently say it is their policy to do.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting us. There are two aspects of this matter which concern us. The first is the desire to see the standard of the world's living raised, which, of course, can never be done by unrestrained and intensive competition in which worker is fighting against worker and the capitalists are fighting each other; and, secondly, to see some reasonable planning of the whole world cotton industry, which cannot be done by the U.S.A. in connection with Japan and England.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Member for Norwich, North, has a first-hand knowledge of Japan, which, I believe, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has not. In fact labour conditions in Japan at the present time are as good as they have ever been, and as good as the standards in any other part of the Orient or the rest of the world.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Labour conditions but not wages.

Mr. Paton: I was talking about the labour and welfare code. I was not discussing the matter of wages in Japan, which is far too complex a subject to attempt to disentangle on the Floor of this House.

Mr. Fort: In any case these standards under the labour and welfare code are comparable with those in many other parts of the world. Yet these people are producing goods which are required at prices which people in countries with a low standard of living can afford. That at once brings us straight away to a part of this problem which has not been mentioned this afternoon. That is the influence of the Colonial Office on the policy of this Government, as no doubt, it has influenced the policy of other Governments.
The Colonial Office, unlike some hon. Gentlemen opposite, has always been consistent in this matter. It has always wanted to see cloth being sold in the territories for which it is responsible as cheaply as possible and regardless of the source from which it comes. Whenever we have had a scheme to control Japanese competition, we have always had to take


notice of the influence which the Colonial Office will bring to bear on those who are negotiating the arrangements.
While mentioning this problem presented by the Colonial Office in the territories for which it is responsible, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply if he can give us any information about the attempted control of exports of East African raw cotton to Japan. We want that cotton in this country, and I am quite sure that it would be a wise provision in any arrangement which may be made with Japan to make sure that we certainly get the first option for Lancashire, on East African raw cotton and that the Japanese come afterwards.

Mr. Lever: Bulk purchase.

Mr. Fort: The raw cotton can be bought by various methods. This Government must take advantage of Article 12 (a) of the Treaty to make a trade agreement with Japan. It must be an extensive agreement so far as textiles are concerned, covering quantities, qualities, markets and also prices. Only by doing that shall we achieve what we all want to see—first, the protection of our own workers in England from unfair trading practices; second—the other point which I think we also all want to see—supplies of textiles going to the parts of the world which want them at prices which they can afford. Both these things can be achieved if we will make a proper trade treaty with Japan, as we are entitled to do under Article 12 of this Treaty.
That is why I so strongly deprecate the view expressed by those who moved and seconded the Amendment to this Bill—that we should delay still further completing the Treaty arrangement with Japan. Until this Bill is passed, we shall not be able to go ahead and make a trade treaty which we want to see. In order to make that treaty effective, we have undoubtedly to work with the Americans and get their active and continued support for such a trade treaty.
I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should arrange, in making a first approach to America, that a mission should arrive in the United States when the Prime Minister gets there early in January, so that he can take up this problem with the President

of the United States, and take it up with the sympathy and understanding which would undoubtedly come from a former Member for Oldham.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). It was, I think, unfair of him to try to suggest that from this side of the House we have said that we wish to see the backward areas of the world have a rising standard of living, and that as soon as we were met with the economic difficulties or the economic possibilities of intense competition from Japan, we objected to it. That assumption is completely false, because if we had that kind of competition, in the same way as we had it between the two wars, then not only would this side of the House object to it, but hon. Members opposite would object to it.
We want to ask certain questions. The object of the Treaty is to balance forces and get a feeling of satisfaction within the economic, social and military fabric of society, so that we can move forward to the next stage of human progress. The question arises: Does this Peace Treaty, as now constructed, give us the conditions in which we can build up a future in Asia and a future in the world?
I am putting forward what are my sincere beliefs. It is no good throwing at me what a Labour Government or a Conservative Government did. Each one of us has a right to his opinion on these vital matters. Some of us sincerely believe that the pattern of the Treaty chiselled out in Asia is not a Treaty which will make for peace in the modern word, for the elementary reason that there are two major Asiatic nations, China and India, which, rightly or wrongly, have refused to sign this Treaty.
For this House, whether it has a majority of Conservative, Labour or Liberal Members, to try to pretend that this Treaty will create peace in Asia is a refusal to face the facts of the world situation today. Some of us object to the timing of this Treaty. This Treaty was forced upon the world at a moment when the Korean incident was at its height, when powers of human judgment were at their lowest ebb because of propaganda.
I do not want to use the horrible word "hysteria" about Americans, because the ordinary people I have met in the United States want peace as much as the ordinary people of Britain. I do not want to misjudge the American people, but I must say that this Treaty was forced on the world at a moment when certain influential forces in the United States were warping and distorting the real economic and military situation in the Far East. That is the first criticism of those of us who have tabled the Motion for rejection of the Bill.
There is another issue. Australia has not been mentioned very much in this debate. Australia was hoping to be the future toolshop of Asia. I do not want to make a long speech, because other hon. Members also want to speak, but I want to make one point. The industrialisation of Australia is forging ahead and, at the present moment, she, as well as Britain, is fearing the possibility of unethical competition from Japan. Australia is a signatory of the Treaty, but so is Britain. The fact that they are signatories does not preclude us from raising here the effects of this Treaty on humanity in Asia.
I have heard hon. Members in the House tonight talking about trade union conditions in Japan. One has only to look at the condition of the Japanese trade unions to see how impossible it is, within any measurable distance, to get anything like a British trade union organisation in Japan. I would illustrate that by advising hon. Members to look in the Library at the Mitsubishi Monthly Economic Circular. It gives the number of factories in Japan in 1930 and in 1950. It will be seen that the average number of workers per factory in the ceramic industry in Japan in 1930 was 6.7. In other words, there was an average of seven workers per factory. According to the same circular the present average is 14 workers per factory. The method used in factories like that of Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Yasudo and other firms was to take the spare parts for industry to various little outlying districts, where they were assembled in small sheds. That kind of industry cannot be reconciled with the modern conception of trade unionism.
We are concerned here with a very difficult but practical problem. We have a right to ask that the Japanese should be given the maximum liberty to organise their industry on the best possible human lines in the interests of Japanese labour. I deprecate the way MacArthurism did not allow Japanese trade unionism to develop along correct trade union lines during the four or five years of the occupation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is worse since he went.

Mr. Davies: I do not want to paint the picture blacker than it is. It is black enough.
Summing up the second part of my argument, we find that the countries of the Pacific and the Far East are afraid of this Treaty even though they have signed it. Australia had hopes of becoming the toolshop of Asia, but she is now going to meet intense industrial and other competition from Japan. I have also dwelt on the difficulties of establishing a trade union organisation on our lines in Japan, and I have illustrated by facts why that should be so. I will now sum up what the effect of all this will be.
If hon. Members look at the list of exports in the black and grim thirties, they will find that in the silk and rayon industries, with which I am concerned—I happen to represent the rayon industry in Leek—it will be seen that 28 per cent. of the silk and rayon exported in the 1930 period throughout the world was exported from Japan, and its factories employed five or less people. In the pencil industry 90 per cent. of the exports came from factories where five or fewer people worked, and in pottery 65 per cent. of the exports came from factories where a similar number of people were working.
We have tried to make a treaty with Japan and we want a treaty with Japan. But the question some of us are posing is—is this an honest-to-goodness Treaty which will build up economic, social and other conditions in the Far East, or is it a Treaty made with the idea of opposing the U.S.S.R.? Was the major factor behind it militarism rather than economic and social welfare? Some of us maintain, despite the honesty of the British Government and the majority of signatories in the Far East that this Treaty has been forced upon the world at the wrong time, largely because of the power-


ful magnetism of the United States of America in the Pacific.
The Congo Basin Treaties have been mentioned. They concerned Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, Zanzibar, the Belgian Congo and Portuguese East Africa. We were giving opportunities, and Japan had the right of going into those areas. I know that this has been abandoned, but I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any power to abolish the old "chops system," as it has been called, in that area. Many of the importing houses in the countries I have mentioned imported British and Japanese textile goods and imprinted their own marks on them. It would not be the Japanese that were doing it. Are we, in this Treaty, going to try to do something about that system of marking goods in the Congo Basin area?
Coming from one of the areas which have met the most intense competition I say, while I do not want a punitive treaty against Japan, that it is wrong to think that the mass of the Japanese are happy about the Treaty. There have been intense divisions in the Japanese Diet about this Treaty. It is wrong to give the British people the idea that 84 million Japanese people are behind the Treaty. Because of that, it is only just that some of us in this House should raise our voices against it at present, to make the world stand and stare

8.38 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: As I have just returned to the House after an absence during the last Parliament, I can hardly claim to be a maiden speaker and to hope for no interruption whatever. We are, however, discussing a problem which is essentially national rather than political, so I hope that I may speak without a great deal of interruption. As is the custom in this House, I declare my interest in the cotton industry, as I am a partner in a firm which has exported textiles, principally to the East, for nearly a century. I have also the honour to represent an important cotton constituency.
It was agreed on all sides in Lancashire when the terms of the proposed Treaty were announced that the cotton industry was very disappointed because it felt that more safeguards for its security

should have been given. We have been given many reasons this afternoon why the Treaty could not be made a safeguard but only a framework into which to build safeguards in the future. During the whole of my business life of nearly 30 years I have been very closely concerned with Japanese competition. Some hon. Members will remember its beginning in acute form in the 1920's. In the 1930's, actually in 1934, with some friends of mine in Lancashire, I requisitioned a special meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which was very unusual at that time. I had the honour that day of proposing a motion criticising the Chamber for having taken so little action against the critical and serious Japanese competition.
Similar conditions exist today. Japanese competition is very much greater and more severe in Lancashire than many hon. Members probably realise. In 1947, there were only about three million spindles in Japan and 150,000 looms. Japanese exports were about 400 million square yards. It is estimated that by the end of the present year their spindlage will have increased to just over six million and their looms to 300,000. That means they will have doubled their productive capacity in about four years, which is an alarming rate of increase. I am informed that the Japanese are working two shifts a day of 8½ hours each and that they work seven days a week.
The markets open to Japan are restricted at the present time, because of the situation in China, Formosa and Korea. That means that their competition is all being focused on the normal markets of this country, and for that reason Lancashire is feeling the competition very severely. I am informed that exports of cotton and rayon textiles from Japan this year are likely to be 50 per cent. greater than similar exports from this country. That is a very serious position.
As has been mentioned, there is a great difference in wages between the Japanese and ourselves. The present real wages in Japan are about 90 per cent. of what they were in 1938, whereas real wages in this country have increased by about 130 per cent. That is a very great and serious divergence. I wish that people in Lancashire could hear this debate. They will no doubt read it in the newspapers tomorrow, and I think many of them will be dissatisfied that there is no note of


urgency or a greater sense of the importance of the matter to Lancashire. I can assure hon. Members who come from other parts of the country that this is a very real and burning question for us. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) mentioned the attitude towards the Americans in the 1870's. I can assure hon. Members that the attitude towards Japanese competition today is very different.
It has been pointed out that until the Treaty is passed Japan is not free voluntarily to negotiate with this country as regards prices, exports, etc. A very important law was passed in Japan in 1947, at the suggestion of the American Government, concerning prohibition of private monopolies and methods of preserving fair trade. It puts the Japanese Government, as soon as they have received this Treaty, into a more secure position than they otherwise would have had for making negotiations with this country.
I believe that Lancashire will demand, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will tonight give us, some firm assurances as to what we may expect. It is quite useless agreeing to the Treaty and then hoping for the best. Lancashire is expecting to hear something definite, and unless it does so it will be greatly disappointed.
There are four suggestions which I wish to make briefly. I believe that, in view of the circumstances, the Government will ultimately find it necessary to re-impose quotas in some of the colonial markets, as existed in pre-war days. Likewise, it is of advantage that the Dominions should negotiate with us to take our textiles where possible in preference to those of Japan. Both the Colonies and the Dominions have small local industries which they wish to foster and it will be impossible to get those industries established if they experience substantial Japanese competition.
Further, we are probably the biggest buyers in the world of the produce from the Colonies and the Dominions, and if we take their produce they ought to take our manufactured articles within reasonable limits. Unless the Dominions and Colonies take our manufactured articles, the sterling currency system may well be seriously embarrassed, if not broken down. We cannot have vast exports from Japan

interfering with the sterling balances, for that might be very dangerous.
Second, the importation of Japanese greycloth into this country, which has not been mentioned today but which has been going on and is of necessity going on, will, I hope, be allowed to continue until the Lancashire mills can produce the necessary greycloth themselves. The capacity for throughput of the finishing trades in this country—the bleachers, the dyers and the printers—is considerably greater than the output of the weavers and spinners. It is essential to have this greycloth finished in this country and exported to our markets, principally the Colonies, which require it, so that we may have another opportunity of holding those markets. If and when Lancashire can produce the greycloth for the finishers of this country, then let them do so. Third, great emphasis has been placed on the protection of trade marks and designs. I would emphasise that that is of the greatest importance, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to tell us something about that.
Lastly, America and ourselves do not see eye to eye on the question of rebuilding the textile economy of Japan. We have entirely different points of view, and that must be recognised. However, I believe that America may not understand our position as well as she might, and I wonder if our representatives have made quite clear to her what is happening. America is boosting the textile industry in Japan and building up a fictitiously large industry which world trade will not be able to maintain in years to come, and presumably America is spending money there.
America is also infusing money into Europe to maintain and increase the economy there as a bolster against Communism. I suggest that some of that money is being wasted and that it would be much better to maintain and encourage the British and European textile industry than to build up the Japanese industry to a fictitious level. It is of the utmost importance to deal with this matter quickly, for, otherwise, the great industry of Lancashire will be jeopardised in the years to come.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: When the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs opened the debate, he was commendably brief, but he must be thinking


that he was, perhaps, too brief in regard to Article 12 of the political and economic clauses. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have made speeches with particular reference to the textile industry, and I am almost shocked to find how much I am in agreement with what was said on this subject by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), who has just spoken, and by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr W. Fletcher).
There is no doubt whatever, as will have been clear from the debate, that today in Lancashire the dreaded words "slump" and "depression" are again being uttered. People remember the disasters of the 1930's, and there is evidence that the same kind of thing is today rearing its head. In my own constituency, there is one firm which, two years ago, installed 144 Northrop automatic looms and operated a two-shift system; but their stocks are piling up, they have stopped one shift, and have reduced production by 50 per cent.
A second firm has made a number of weavers and winders redundant, and those who have been retained will work only two weeks out of three. A third fim has stopped 50 looms and some winding frames, and a number of other firms are weaving for stock purposes only. I do not suggest that it is entirely the fault of Japanese competition, but there is no doubt at all that Japanese competition is one of the factors that is bringing about these results.
The reasons for this have been fairly clearly expressed, particularly in regard to wages. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich mentioned that real wages in Japan are now only 90 per cent. of what they were before the war. The figure which I have is 70 per cent., and today's figure for Lancashire is 125 per cent, of what it was pre-war. I take these figures from the report by Mr. Ernest Thornton, the Secretary of the United Textile Workers' Association, who was a member of the Anglo-American delegation which went to Japan in May of last year. They should, therefore, be fairly up to date and reliable.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), tried to make a point that in addition to cash wages, there is in Japan a certain amount of payment in kind, and he mentioned that

houses are provided. I cannot accept that as any great contribution to the payment of workers. In the textile industry, it certainly could not have a very great effect, because the same report which I have just quoted states that 80 to 90 per cent. of the operative personnel in the cotton textile industry is female, with an age range of 14 to 25 years; and it goes on to describe how they are recruited in the countryside and live mostly in dormitories. It can hardly be said, therefore, that those girls are provided with houses to supplement their very low cash wages.
Lancashire simply cannot understand why Japan, a country that was defeated in the war, is apparently expanding its cotton textile industry with the help of raw cotton from America, while the supply of the same raw cotton for Lancashire is being cut down by the U.S.A.
As regards wages, Japan is in a comparatively better position to compete with Lancashire than before the war, but wages, of course, are by no means the only factor. The price of raw cotton has increased more than the price of labour, and therefore labour shows up less in relation to the total cost than before the war. The "Economist" of 27th October said this:
There is an even greater difference between Japanese and British production costs today than there was before the war; the difference is probably over three times as great and British costs are certainly much more rigid than Japanese.
The point is that the menace is growing. We have had figures from various hon. Members showing how the number of spindles in Japan, which was 12 million before the war, had a post-war limit of four million imposed by the American authorities. That limit was removed last June, and we now hear that they have about six million spindles and that production is about half the pre-war figure. An interesting point is that they are re-equipping their textile mills with machinery which is made in Japan, which means that this is another direction in which trade is being taken away from this country, and, incidentally, from my constituency.
I cannot share the optimism of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, about how gentlemanly the Japanese will


behave in competition with this country. I wish I could, but I think experience shows that, just as they are ruthless in war, they have been ruthless in their trade methods. They have broken obligations before and we have no guarantee that they will not do so again. It is not that we do not understand their problems and difficulties. The growth of population has been mentioned, the necessity of trading with South-East Asia, their desperate need to export or die, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) said, and their lost markets.
These things can be put right to some extent—at least the last one can—if the U.S.A. will alter its policy in regard to China and allow Japan to have full trade relations with China, thereby absorbing some of the exported cotton which otherwise will go to damage British markets at home and abroad. Hitherto, Lancashire has been able to hold its own to a large extent, partly because of the restrictions which up to now have been imposed on Japanese industry and partly because of other factors I have mentioned, but what is to be the effect of this Treaty?
I will not repeat the point so eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) about Article 14 (a). But I have it very much in mind because in my division I have seen the grey cloth which has come from Japan into the mills of Accrington to be dyed and finished. That grey cloth could be made in Lancashire if they had the raw cotton and it should have been made in Lancashire. If that kind of thing is to expand, as it is expanding, the position will be very dangerous.
I have figures which show that Japan exported 177 million square yards of grey cloth to this country in 1949 for finishing. In 1950 it was 91 million square yards and, in the first eight months of this year, it was 57,500,000 square yards. I admit that some of that grey cloth was useful at a time when we were short of raw cotton, but it would have been better to have got the raw cotton and then the grey cloth could have been made in Accrington.

Mr. H. Rhodes: That was not the difficulty which was important. There was a shortage of labour and of yarn, not of raw cotton.

Mr. Hynd: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who knows more about the technical side of the industry than I do.
I wish to say a word about the safeguards we can look for in this Treaty. Are they sufficient? In the preamble Japan promises:
In public and private trade and commerce to conform to internationally accepted fair practices.
In Article 12 (2) it states that they will
ensure that external purchases and sales of Japanese State trading enterprises shall be based solely on commercial considerations.
But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) asked, can these things be enforced? I very much doubt it.
Japan has been admitted to the International Labour Organisation and has a trade union movement of a kind, but it has been pointed out that conditions in the labour field have tended to get worse and I very much doubt whether those safeguards in the Treaty are enforceable at all. What, then, can be done? Certainly, something must be done—there is no doubt about that—to maintain the two great improvements we have achieved in this country over the last few years—our standard of living and full employment. If we lose those we shall put the clock of history back a great deal.
I wish to put two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and hope he will be able to answer them. It has been mentioned in the Treaty that Japan has had to renounce the rights she had under the Congo Basin Conventions. I wish to know the exact effect of that. The hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield), in an excellent maiden speech, gave some explanation, but I was unable to follow just what the effect of renouncing those rights would be. The other question is, that as Japan has to give us mostfavoured-nation treatment with regard to exports and imports, but only on a reciprocal basis, what exactly will be the effect, or what benefit are we likely to get out of it?
I was delighted when the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich suggested that we should try to get the Dominions and Colonies in their trade arrangements with us to specify that they would take British textiles. That is an excellent suggestion which I should like to be followed up. I


hope that the hon. Member realises that it will, of course, mean bulk purchase and long-term agreements. Whatever is done will the President of the Board of Trade please try to give us some hope to take back to Lancashire about what has become a situation causing fear of much damage to industry immediately, even before the full effects of this unfair Japanese competition are experienced?
Up to now the Lancashire cotton textile industry has been making desperate efforts to recruit labour to re-equip and modernise itself. That has been done because of optimism about expanding trade but if there is to be this re-emergence of unfair Japanese competition, and our trade is to be set back again, all those efforts towards recruitment, modernisation and re-equipment will have been in vain, and will certainly not be continued. Therefore the matter is urgent and I beg that the Minister will give us some word of hope to take back to our constituencies.

9.3 p.m.

AirCommodore A. V. Harvey: I support this Treaty with many misgivings, and I am sorry for my right hon. Friend and those who have to take this baby over from the previous Government, because it will provide them with a headache. We have had a lot of nice speeches about how well the Japanese will behave and how well they have behaved. I was in Manchuria in 1931 when the Japanese came into Mukden. I saw the way they behaved then. They have behaved much worse since and I see no hope or indication that they have changed their spots in the last few years. We can forgive, but we cannot forget. It is just as well to remember that this is a bargain and I should like some assurance that the textile industry of Britain will be safeguarded.
It is all very well to say, "Do not let us bring textiles into the debate." But it will be too late when the debate is over. We have heard from every hon. Member coming from the north-west of England that there is unemployment in the cotton and other textile industries. We have that even before we have experienced the Japanese competition. I have in my hand a sample print sent out to Malaya. In a matter of weeks the Japanese had copied it at one-third of the price. A sample of silk was sent out to Karachi from my own division of

Macclesfield. Within four weeks it had been copied in Japan identically�žincluding the faults.
I recognise that if we want peace we have to have a reasonable Treaty, but I think some safeguards should be taken to ensure that we will not have large pockets of unemployment in the north-west of Britain. Under the Registered Designs Act, 1949, there are certain safeguards in British colonial territories. That applies only if a case can be proved, and it is not always easy to prove. It is estimated that something like half-a-million yards of fabrics have been copied. That is known, and there are probably many hundreds of thousands of yards which are not known about.
The Japanese have no re-armament programme; they are not faced with Purchase Tax; they are able to build up their home market to support a healthy export market, and I am very concerned about it. I should have thought that some procedure could have been worked out regarding reparations which have not been paid, even to our own colonial territories like Malaya, or to Indonesia and elsewhere. There ought to be a tax on Japanese fabrics and goods sold until these reparations are paid off, thus bringing the price of the Japanese fabrics into line with those of other countries.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party referred today to everything except sweated labour, which still exists in Japan, where children are working 10 and 12 hours a day. Surely, we should have had some assurance that that point would be taken care of. I ask my right hon. Friend to give this matter his full consideration, as I am certain he will, because the last thing we want to see is distress in that large area of Britain. In order to give our people continuous employment, we ask for nothing more than a square deal and competition on terms of equality. If there is unfair competition, the copying of designs and all the rest of it, then we shall have "had it" for a long time to come.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: We have had an interesting debate, in the course of which we have heard hon. Members from the North-West of England, from Staffordshire and from other parts of the country which


have a special interest in the economic aspects of this matter, and it is right that that should be so.
We have had two excellent maiden speeches, both, as it happens, from the other side of the House—from the hon. Member for the Eye division (Mr. H. Harrison), and the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield). Like other hon. Members, I would congratulate them, and express the hope that we may hear them again contributing to our debates.
A great deal of the debate, indeed most of it, has been about the economic and trade aspects of this Treaty, and their repercussions. We are in the somewhat novel position that the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill—which, I understand, is intended to carry with it the Parliamentary aspect of ratification; that is to say, authorisation to the Government to ratify—has been submitted by a Government who are recommending the ratification of a Treaty which they did not make, but which was made by their predecessors.
In fact, the Treaty bears my signature, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), and of the British Ambassador in Washington. In a sense, although speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, I am the Minister in charge of the Treaty, and, certainly, I have an obligation to defend the action which the late Government took. For good Parliamentary reasons, it is the duty of the present Government, assuming that they agree with it, to support the Treaty and the Bill in the House of Commons.
I freely agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House, including some on this side, are apprehensive about the economic and trade consequences of Japanese competition. I am afraid I must go through these points rather quickly, because I have promised to finish by 9.25 p.m. in order to leave the President of the Board of Trade the time which the right hon. Gentleman requires in order to cover fully the points raised in the debate.
I am not unsympathetic to the points of view expressed in that respect. The only question is whether the Treaty could have been better, and, if so, what provision could have been made and how the problem could have been solved by means of

this Treaty. We gave the matter consideration, as did some other countries which are involved in the Treaty, but the fact has to be faced that different countries took different views about it. I think it is an over-simplification of the issue to assume that the United States took one view and everybody else took the other. I assure the House that that is anything but true.
To take the question of economic competition and the desire for a requirement to observe standards that are comparable, for example, with our own, if we had tried to enforce that, and had insisted upon it, I am sure we should have broken on this matter—perhaps not so much with the United States, because they would have nothing to fear from us, though they would from other low-standard countries who were concerned as potential signatories of the Treaty—but with countries in the Far East and other parts of the world as well, whose own labour standards are low and who might fear repercussions of the same sort upon themselves.
The truth is, I do not think we can settle what wages shall be paid or what labour standards shall be observed by concrete provisions in treaties, and if a policy of this kind were pursued, then, quite logically, at the end of the day we ourselves would have to be subject to some kind of legislation of a similar sort so that the higher standards of the United States and of some of the British Commonwealth countries might be protected against British competition.
Therefore, while I understand the problems and the feeling of Lancashire, the Potteries, the West Riding and other parts of the country about it, and I sympathise with hon. Members who are apprehensive about it, I do not see, quite honestly, having thought about it a great deal, how we could effectively have provided a remedy for it in the actual Treaty itself. It is true of course, that from our point of view, Japan has the awkward combination of low labour standards, a weak and to some extent, I agree, depressed trade union movement combined with a high standard of mechanical and technical efficiency in production. The awkwardness of the situation is the combination of these two things, and that is why I so well understand the apprehension voiced from various parts of the House.
It is, of course, a problem that exists somewhere else. But we did not entirely ignore the problem, and if hon. Members will look at page 2 of the document containing the Treaty they will find some relevance in the statements that are made there, including the undertaking by Japan to apply for membership of the United Nations, to accept the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Charter speaks of fundamental freedoms which I think include trade union organisation, and Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for freedom for everybody to join a trade union.
I would add that in the case of the International Labour Office there is the greatest possible provision for the principle of the right of work-people to organise trade unions and freely to function in trade unions, which is more specific and categorical than the declaration in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I understand it, Japan has already joined the International Labour Organisation, or, if not, is on the verge of doing so. Therefore, she is committed in that respect as well. That being so, I think that as far as we could we made provision on this matter. With respect, I hardly think that one can do so by more concrete provisions and penalties.
I think the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was right when he said that there are already in existence at this time treaties which provide for arbitration, and which state in specific terms that they cannot be set aside and that arbitration or fresh negotiations should proceed. But they are actually being set aside, and Governments are finding it exceedingly difficult to know exactly what to do in these circumstances. Perhaps as civilisation progresses we shall find a way out. I agree with somebody who said that it is one of those matters about which we ought to talk in the House from time to time in order to see whether some remedy or solution can be found. I am all for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), referred to Article 14 (a). That is an Article which provides that Japan may be required to work upon the raw material and to return the manufactured goods to countries which were the victims of Japanese occu-

pation or of damage at Japanese hands. My hon. Friend is apprehensive that this may lead to large-scale unfair competition by Japan with British industry. We considered that but we did not feel apprehensive of large-scale trouble on that point.
The demand came from countries, some of them very poor, economically difficult and backward, that had been the victims of Japanese occupation and ill-treatment. It was the only form of reparation that could be worked out, because it is perfectly clear that Japan in her present economic condition and in her economic condition for some time to come will not have much reparation money to throw about. Her economic condition is enormously different from what it was before the war. This was a form of reparation to those countries. But our impression is that they will not get a great deal out of it in reparation, and there is nothing to cause my hon. Friend to apprehend that there will be big repercussions in Lancashire and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), sought a way out of the difficulty about a remedy. He suggested that one of the sanctions should be that Japan should not be admitted to the United Nations until there was a general declaration by industrialists—that is employers and trade union leaders—stating that Japan was conducting her business fairly in relation to the rest of the world. Again I cite the difficulty with other low-standard and backward countries; and I cannot see the United Nations putting itself into the position that it would not admit a country unless there were a certificate from a body of employers and trade union leaders, valuable as that might be.
I do not think, with great respect to my hon. Friend, that that is a practicable proposition; and at a moment when we on this side of the House have been asking all the time for the admission of China it could have repercussions by somewhat analogous arguments in that respect which I think would be rather unfortunate. But it is a real problem and I hope we can discuss it further.
I come to a political point with regard to China. It is argued that China should have been admitted to the United Nations before Japan. I can say at once that as


far as the Labour Government and the Labour Party were concerned, if we had had our way China would have been admitted to the United Nations many months ago. Therefore, there is nothing between me and those of my hon. Friends who have stressed this Chinese point. We should have liked it to have been so, and we sought to ensure that it should be so.
Later the question was complicated by the fighting in Korea in which China, officially or unofficially, but certainly effectively, became involved. There was then a great feeling that it was the wrong moment to admit her. There was the feeling, not on our part but on the part of other countries, and particularly of the United States in this respect, that it would be wrong to admit China at a moment when they said their boys were being shot down by Chinese volunteers or whatever one might like to call them, in Korea. I still think China should have been admitted, but one has to have sufficient tolerance to understand the point of view of other people. I understand the argument, though on a balance of considerations I do not agree with it.
I think we were right—I think Mr. Bevin was right—to recognise China and to send diplomatic representation. It is only fair to add that I wish China had been more responsive in recognising the British recognition of China; that would have been most helpful to Anglo-Chinese relations. Nevertheless, I still say that I think we were right to recognise the People's Central Government of China, not because it is Communist or because it is not, but because it is the effective de facto Government of China. I would wish that that Government should be admitted to the United Nations, and I say to His Majesty's Government that when the cease fire is settled between the United Nations and China, or at any rate a little later, but not long after, I hope that the Government will go back again to the United Nations and have another go with regard to the admission of China there.

Mr. Nutting: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I should like to get the position straight as regards the attitude of the official Opposition. Am I right in supposing that the official Opposition's attitude in this matter is that so

long as China remains branded as an aggressor by the United Nations, and so long as the fighting in Korea continues, the attitude of His Majesty's Opposition is that she should not become a member of the United Nations?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has gone too far. If he takes up my time I cannot keep my word with the President of the Board of Trade. That intervention really was not essential. I stated the view of the Labour Government at the time in this House—it is on record—and to that declaration I adhere. The hon. Gentleman has tried to take me a little further than I went and I do not want to go so far as he wished to take me. If he will look up the record, a declaration was made on behalf of the Labour Government—I think I made it myself—and to that declaration I would adhere, although we are in opposition. It is the case that it would be desired by many people—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) was listened to, and he should not indulge in his old tricks of trying to create confusion when somebody else is speaking.
With regard to China vis-à-vis the Japanese Treaty, I would only say that we would have been perfectly happy if the People's Central Government of China had been at the San Francisco Conference and had been permitted to sign the Treaty, or not, as she wished. I imagine she would not have wished to do so, but we should like to have given her the chance. But what was the situation? We had recognised that Government. Some other countries had recognised that Government. But a number of other countries, not confined to the United States, had not recognised that Government. France had not. There were others, including certain countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
It would have been utterly impossible to have got agreement that the People's Central Government of China should be the Chinese Government to deal with Japan on the Treaty at that time. As far as I was concerned, I was equally determined that we would not assent to the Government of Chiang Kai-shek being the signatory to the Treaty or the Government to be recognised; I was absolutely flat and firm about it.
There we were. Nobody could agree on which Government should be recognised, and we thought that the only way would be to postpone that matter and let Japan herself make the decision later on.
I do not accept the view that if we once give a country sovereign status we can then play about with it. I do not think we can conveniently keep strings on it. Moreover, I do not think it is the case that the United States is necessarily going to determine which China Japan is going to recognise. Japan has substantial economic interests on the mainland of China, and so has the mainland of China with Japan; and I am a sufficient believer in economic forces—I hope I am a believer in other forces as well—to believe that that will have its effect.
In conclusion, I would say that, broadly speaking, what we had to decide was whether this should be a harsh treaty, one which imposed restrictions, severe conditions, penalties, post-treaty control; or whether it should be what we call a liberal treaty which is not a bad word in this case—with a small "1." I admit it is a risk; one cannot be certain. There are three possible courses for the future of Japan. One is as a Parliamentary democracy. I hope that will be the case. That is, social progress, free trade unions, a modern Labour movement, a modern Co-operative movement—all these latest improvements in society. It could go Fascist; it could go Communist, quite easily.
I believe the best bet—and it cannot be any more than the best best; and I am not asking anybody to bet about it, because I do not believe in gambling—is that she is most likely to come in with the free democracies and the more peaceful nations if we say to Japan. "Come into the club. If you come into the club there are certain rules about the club which you will have to accept, and you will understand them." But if we say to Japan, "Yes, we will give you peace but we will give it only subject to irksome conditions, penalties and fines and post-Treaty controls and what not," then I believe that Japan, and almost any other country of the world in similar circumstances, would dodge those conditions as soon as she possibly could.
Fundamentally, the best chance of real peace and progress is upon the

lines of this Treaty. In all the circumstances, and especially as it was our Government which did it, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, will not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division but that the House will give assent to the Second Reading of the Bill and thereby agree that the Treaty shall be ratified.

9.27 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I rise to reply to the debate. If I may be allowed to say so, it has been a debate distinguished by the moderation of the speeches which we have heard—a moderation, I think, dictated by the fact that all of us, on both sides of the House of Commons, face a common problem and share a common anxiety about the future.
It has also been distinguished by two admirable maiden speeches, if I may say so, and also by no fewer than three speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, no fewer than two of which were definitely in favour of the Treaty. I refer, of course, to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). After all, they signed the Treaty. For our part, I would say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we intend to honour the signatures which they appended to it. Indeed, I think the only sensible course to adopt now is quite clearly to recognise that the Treaty has been signed and to take the necessary steps to enable us to introduce the measures required under it.
The debate has, however, been lent more point by the action of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It would have been a pity if we had all been in agreement. He has brought a note of controversy into our discussion. His Amendment is:
That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.
If it were carried, that would be a serious matter. It would postpone many actions which should be taken, including, of course, the assembly of Japanese assets and payment out to the former prisoners of war. It would also be directly contrary to the desire and the intention of the leaders of his own party when they signed the Treaty.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), speaking in his support, engaged in a frontal assault on his own Front Bench. He said the Treaty was an inopportune, futile and reckless proceeding. I do not know, when I came to consider the hon. Gentleman's arguments in support of that, that I was particularly impressed with them. He admitted, quite openly and frankly, that we could not put into this Treaty definite restrictive measures designed to curtail Japanese competition.
What he really said was, "We ought to have written into the Treaty some of the things that are put as voluntary agreements into the preamble—that is to say, they ought to have been in the Articles." Well, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) on that matter. I do not believe that the future of all this is to be settled by whether those undertakings happen to be in the preamble or whether they happen to be in the clauses.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the part of my speech he has quoted did not come out of that part in which I was dealing with economic safeguards, but out of that part in which I was dealing with the general political background?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not dealing with any question of the general political background and the question of Communism, China, and the rest. I am talking about whether the social provisions should or should not have been put into specific Articles and I say that I agree with the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery, that there are much wider issues here than that of whether we find these provisions in one part of the Treaty or another.
All I want to do tonight is to deal with some of the arguments and answer some of the many questions which have been addressed to me, but before I do so I should like to say a word or two about some of the basic problems which underly the Treaty, because, though it is limited in so far as this Bill is concerned, the Treaty does touch some of the really big issues of policy affecting our trading position in the world.
Let me say this at once. I know that probably any hon. Member of the House of Commons, if he had been drafting this Treaty on his own, would not have drafted it in the precise terms in which we find it here, but the truth, of course, is that one does not draft treaties on one's own, but with those who happen to have been one's enemies yesterday and tomorrow have to be one's friends, and because of this situation the perfect solution is not very easy to arrive at.

Mr. H. Morrison: And with a lot of one's friends as well.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, and with a lot of one's friends as well. No one is more conscious than I, unless it be my predecessor, the former President of the Board of Trade, of the mass of tangled problems to which this Treaty is bound to give rise—the questions of Japanese competition, of treaty rights, of compensation for prisoners of war, and the like. I do not promise to be able to give a satisfactory answer to all of them, but I do intend to tell the House the truth about them as I see it.
Let me start by dealing with Japan herself, not because she means more than us, but because she is a principal party to the Treaty. She is there, and the fact of her existence and of her problems has to be faced. There are 84 million Japanese, and a working force of some 38 million, all crowded together in an island, an ingenious people, enterprising and industrious, and, like us, compelled to earn by their exports the raw materials and the food they need for their existence. I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), who has great knowledge of Far Eastern matters, and I thought he was right to draw the analogy between the problems which confront the Japanese and the problems which confront us.
Somehow or another we have to learn to face common problems and to live in the world together, and it will be a test not only of political but industrial statesmanship to see that that state of affairs is brought about. We could not have had a Treaty which imposed direct restrictions upon production. Such a Treaty would be, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby said, quite apart from anything else, impossible to implement. It would require a permanent occupation


Force to see that its measures were carried out, and I think everybody in the House would reject that solution. Not only would it have been impracticable, but a Treaty of that kind would have landed us—and, indeed, the whole Western world—with insuperable problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. W. W. Astor), in his speech, indicated some of the alternatives to this Treaty. It would mean a Japan perhaps permanently occupied—certainly, permanently subsidised—a Japan always impoverished, and, by that impoverishment, a source for the spread of Communist propaganda and the like. I think that everybody agrees that a treaty of that kind should have been rejected.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby, asked me a specific question which I would like to answer at this point. He raised the possibility of pressure being exercised by the United States of America upon the Japanese to recognise Nationalist China. All I would say is that we have no reason whatever to suppose that the United States Government will do otherwise than leave it to the Japanese people and the Japanese Government to decide upon its own relations with that Government.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to us the meaning of Article 6 (1)? The United States Government are digging into Japan for strategic, military and other not very decent purposes.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will deal with Article 6 when I come to it in my speech. I do not propose to add to the statement I have made in answer to the right hon. Member for Grimsby.
What we have to face now is the certainty of growing Japanese competition in the future. I think that no one should attempt to minimise that danger or try to write it down in any way. The Japanese have received—and I make no complaint about this—considerable aid and assistance from the United States. They have a large and growing population—growing at the rate of something like a million a year. Like us, they have a balance of payments problem. American aid is declining, and they aim to balance their payments by 1955, which would envisage a still further extension of their exports.
Second, they have a large supply of cheap labour. I believe that it is about one-third of our wage levels. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, referred to the question of the trade unions in Japan. Approximately six million out of the 38 million are enrolled in trade unions of one sort or another. It is true to say that there are insurance, accident and health schemes of some sort in Japan. It would not be true to say that it is the intention of the Japanese Government to whittle those away. Indeed, their statements are to the contrary effect.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Trade unionists in South Wales were at one time not looked upon as trade unionists, and in our view trade unionism is developing now in a similar way in Japan. We have only to read "The Times."

Mr. Thorneycroft: I was about to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a perfectly fair one. The development of a trade union movement in Japan is a good thing in itself, and a very helpful matter in dealing with this question of competition, but the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton), was right when he said that, having done all that, and even if there were a substantial increase in trade union membership and a substantial improvement in social conditions and the like, we would still be faced with a situation where Japanese labour, for reasons which have been gone into in this debate, would be substantially cheaper than anything paid over here. In that respect we would be up against conditions where they would under-cut our particular exports.
The third factor is that, unfortunately, Japanese exports tend to concentrate on a field of particular interest to us, textiles, pottery and certain machinery. The best Japanese firms combine cheap labour with intense mechanisation, and, as someone had put it in the debate, the American "know-how" and Asiatic wage make the most formidable competition that can confront anyone.
Nor does the problem end there. The great Oriental markets for Japan have, in part, diminished and are, in part, closed to her. India is increasingly a great producer of her own goods, and even China has developed a cotton manufacturing industry. There are those


markets, which are closed for reasons well-known to everybody on all sides of the House. So the position here is that this is no minor problem of competition. Here we have a powerful, industrious people, deprived of their normal markets, with a large, cheap labour force and notable assistance from the United States, with no particular obligation to re-arm, but compelled by the very facts of life to export goods. That is what we are up against, and that is the problem which one way or another we have to solve. I thought it better to state it plainly and frankly, and I now turn to some questions bearing on the solution.
When looking for a solution, the first thing I did was to see what my predecessors suggested. First of all I read the speeches of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who had been Parliamentary Secretary at the Board of Trade. I read his speech of 6th April, 1950, when he was challenged with the problem with which I am now confronted, and he said he had only been four weeks at the Board of Trade, which was insufficient time for him to solve the problem. I have been exactly four weeks at the Board of Trade and I respect the shrewdness of the hon. Member.
I then read what was suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby. On 28th May, 1950, in a most considered and careful speech, as one would expect from him, he suggested something in the nature of an Eastern Schuman Plan as an answer to these particular problems. I thought it curious to have confirmation of a Schuman Plan from any hon. Gentleman opposite, for I remember the number of times on platforms in recent weeks when I have been told I was selling the economic destiny of my country to the French.
I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to sell it to the Japanese. I thought there might be something in it. I caused the very fullest inquiries to be made. I searched high and low to find where the plan had got to. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was it the Schuman Plan or a human plan?"] No, it was a Schuman Plan. I searched both in the Foreign Office and in the Board of Trade to find whether it existed.
I am compelled to rely on a few comments of my own. For good or ill, this country has for a considerable number of years been engaged in attempting to encourage the flow of trade between the nations of the world, to lower trade barriers and to avoid undue discrimination. I do not say this in any dogmatic or doctrinaire sense. All parties have agreed that those aims were entirely consistent with the maintenance of our Imperial Preference, and the rest. That was the most important aim of our trade policy. I do not think that this Treaty would be an occasion when we should make a final judgment upon these matters, or use it as an excuse to reverse that policy, or suddenly rush into panic, restrictive measures.
The threat of future Japanese competition is great and grave. I have not attempted to burke that issue, but today, cotton textile production in Japan is only 54 per cent. of what it was in the period 1932–36. It is true that today the Japanese have six million spindles compared with eight million before the war.

Mr. H. Rhodes: No, more than that. They were 12 million.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that was a nominal figure. I am told that eight million is a much more accurate figure, but I will accept the figure from the hon. Gentleman, because it merely adds to the strength of my argument, which is always helpful when one is winding up a debate. Not all interventions have that effect. Let me take the areas in which competition can be felt and which were mentioned by hon. Members during the course of our discussion.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) what our attitude would be about most-favoured-nation treatment. My answer is that today we extend most-favoured-nation treatment to Japan, but we are under no obligation to do so under the Treaty that we have signed, nor will we tie ourselves to do so because it would, in these circumstances, be unwise, with the future as uncertain as it is. The truth is—and I would say this to those who attack us—that this country is free to impose quotas, to put on tariffs or to discriminate against Japanese trade coming into this island.
The second point was about the Colonial Empire. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield), in his notable maiden speech, raised the question of the Congo Basin Treaties, as did also the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). The position about these Treaties can be quite simply stated. It is that under the Treaty of Berlin of 1885, free trade was virtually given to this area for the benefit, not of ourselves, but of the African Colonies and other nations who wished to have access to the raw materials of that area.
By the Convention of St.-Germain-en-Laye Japan, who had been our allies in the First World War—which is not to be forgotten in this connection—was brought into that circle. By the present Treaty, her rights as a direct signatory, but only as a direct signatory under that Treaty, are taken away. She is still "a nation of the world" in the sense of the original Berlin Treaty. As such, she is entitled to that freedom of access, or may be entitled to that freedom of access, to which other nations are entitled.
To change that it would probably be necessary to bring all the original signatories together. But to tell the truth, if one wants to see the position about the Japanese competition in the Colonial Empire one has to look beyond the rather tangled maze of the Congo Basin Treaties and look at the facts of the existing situation. The truth is that we are, of course, under an obligation not only to ourselves but to the Colonies themselves. We are not entirely free—not by any manner of means—to suggest to the Colonies that they should impose this, that or the other quota or restriction, and whatever we did, we should be very careful before we proposed anything which was contrary to their own interest. They owe much to us, but we also—particularly these days—owe much to them, and I believe that it is these more practical considerations which will determine the arrangements with regard to protection and otherwise in those theatres.
The third matter to which I want to refer in this context is the question of the nature of the competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), in a notable contribution, said—it was a practical point—that, after all, we must expect to

meet competition, that it is no good pretending that we can get away from it in some manner or other, and that we had better make up our minds that it will come. But he added that we should do everything we can to ensure that that competition is upon the fairest possible terms and is not of the type and kind which we have experienced from that quarter in years gone by.
Under the declaration, Japan undertakes to enter into a number of conventions. Two conventions were mentioned by the hon. Member for Rossendale. One was the Convention on Industrial Property. The answer about that is that Japan has always been a signatory of that Convention and still remains one. The second Convention which he mentioned was the Madrid Convention, which deals with marks and indications of origin, and the Japanese have undertaken to subscribe to that.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The Madrid Convention is, of course, contained in the declaration at the end of the Treaty. What I asked about was the Berne copyright Convention.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not quite certain about the answer, but I will make certain and let the hon. Gentleman know.
The truth is this. It is one thing to sign these declarations, but what is important is that they should be meticulously adhered to. I know, without even the mass of evidence in teacups which has been produced during the Debate, that there have been many examples, and many examples can be shown, where designs have been taken and copied with meticulous accuracy and sold at very much lower prices.
I believe we have a field of action there. I believe that, to begin with, we should say that the intentions of the Japanese under the Treaty, which we are prepared to believe are honourable, will in the first instance be somewhat judged by whether they really do take steps to see that there is not the pirating of designs—

Mr. Ellis Smith: rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have given way once already and I cannot give way again on this matter—and the taking away of copyright in the manner described by hon. Gentlemen in the debate.
We have to look beyond the terms of this Treaty if we are to judge the relations between our two countries in trading matters. The way for negotiations is still left open under the Treaty. Various suggestions have been made, but I think that much good can be done, and already has been done, by the meetings between the textile industry over here and the textile industry in Japan. I see no reason at all why the good that they have done already should not be continued and extended into other industries. I believe that those contacts upon an industrial—and, may I add, upon a trade union—basis would be by far the best way of starting to solve some of these problems, which confront not only this country, but the Japanese as well. I would certainly give every encouragement to the pursuit of negotiations of that character.
I want to say one word about the question of prisoners of war. The whole House listened with respect and admiration to the speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. H. Harrison). He was well qualified to speak upon this subject. He had himself been a prisoner of war, and many members of his constituency of Eye played a great and honourable part in those sad events which followed Singapore.
I will only say this about it. I believe that those who conducted these negotiations on behalf of the prisoners of war, and those hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who argued their case in the last Parliament, have discharged a very proper duty. I could wish that the compensation to be paid was greater, but the fact is that they are getting under Article 14 the assets which are available in this country. I think that the thing to do is to get on with the business, to pass the Bill, to assemble

those assets, and to see that they are distributed to the appropriate organisations.

I hope that the House will pass the Bill. I think that that is the honourable and proper course to take at this stage in the proceedings. I recognise the force and sincerity of the arguments which have been advanced about it. I am not, as I hope my speeches show, oblivious to the dangers or the difficulties which confront us, but the Treaty has been signed; it has been signed after a very long and difficult period of negotiation and waiting. I agree with the hon. Member for Rossendale that at this stage of the proceedings one really has to accept the signature, and not argue that it might have been done differently, and get on and take the necessary measures to implement the Treaty.

This is not the final chapter in Japanese relations, but it places them on a basis with the minimum of bitterness and the best hope of further progress. Nor is it the final comment on the trading pattern of the world. Our job is to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom, to see that the Colonies get a square deal, and to further the interests of the Commonwealth. But those great considerations can only be properly pursued in the context of a gradual reduction in the way of world poverty as a whole and the extension of world trade as a whole. I believe that that is the underlying purpose of the Treaty.

Japan was once our great ally. I believe she can be again our friend. I believe that the speeches which have been made in this debate indicate the lines upon which this friendship can be built up and sustained in future years.

Question put, "That 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 382; Noes, 33.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bacon, Mils Alice
Bishop, F. P.


Albu, A. H.
Baker, P. A. D.
Black, C. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M
Blackburn, F


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Baldwin, A. E.
Blenkinsop, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Banks, Col C.
Blyton, W. R


Alport, C. J. M.
Barlow, Sir John
Bottomley, A. G


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Bowden, H. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Bartley, P.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, R. M. (Bucks, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Braine, B. R.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gosport)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Astor, Hon. W W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Benson, G.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Beswick, F
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S
Birch, Nigel
Brooke, Henry Hampstead)




Brooman-White, R. C.
Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bullard, D. G.
Hastings, S.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hay, John
Maude, Angus


Burden, F. F. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Burton, Miss F E.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Butcher, H. W.
Heald, Lionel
Mellor, Sir John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Messer, F


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Milner, Maj. Rt. Hon. J


Carson, Hon. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cary, Sir R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A H. E.


Champion, A. J
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Channon, H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Moody, A. S.


Chapman, W. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morley, R.


Clunie, J.
Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Cole, N. J.
Hope, Lord John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hopkinson, Henry
Mort, D. L.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Moyle, A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Horobin, I. M.
Murray, J. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N


Cranborne, Viscount
Houghton, Douglas
Nally, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, F. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Crouch, R. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakshott, H. D


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Odey, G. W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oswald, T.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, T. C.


Donner, P. W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jeger, George (Goole)
Parker, J.


Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Partridge, E


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paton, J.


Duthie, W. S.
Jennings, R.
Pearson, A.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Johnson, E. S. T. (Blackley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Ewart, R.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Popplewell, E.


Fienburgh, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, G.


Finch, H J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Finlay, G B.
Kinley, J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Prior-Palmer. Brig. O. L.


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Fletcher-Cooke, C
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Raikes, H. V.


Fort, R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe amp; Lonsdale)
Linstead, H. N.
Redmayne, M.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Gage, C. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Remnant, Hon. P


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ronton, D. L. M.


Galbraith. T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Luoas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rhodes, H.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
MeAdden, S. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Gibson, C. W.
McCullum, Major D.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Glanville. James
MacColl, J. E.
Robertson, Sir David


Gomme-Dunean, Col. A.
MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maodonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gower, H. R.
McGhee, H. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Graham, Sir Fergus
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Roper, Sir Harold


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McKibbtn, A. J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Grey, C. F.
McLeavey, F.
Host, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Royle, C.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Maomillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Russell, R. S.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hamilton, W. W.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Hannan, W.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Hargreaves, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Scott, R. Donald


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major S. F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.







Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Sylvester, G. O.
Webbe, Sir H. (London amp; Westminster)


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wellwood, W.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
West, D G.


Short, E. W.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Teeling, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Slater, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wigg, G. E. C.


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wilkins, W. A.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Snadden, W. McN
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Snow, J. W.
Tilney, John
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Touche, G. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Speir, R. M.
Turner, H. F. L
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wills, G.


Stevens, G. P.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vosper, D. F.
Wood, Hon. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wade, D. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
York, C.


Storey, S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wallace, H. W.



Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summers, G. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Heath.


Sutcliffe, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Driberg, T. E. N.
Mikardo, Ian


Baird, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Bence, C. R.
Foot, M. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hardy, E. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Cove, W. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Watkins, T. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Yates, V. F.


Crossman, R. H. S
Logan, D. G.



Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Donnelly, D. L.
Manuel, A. C.
Mr. Harold Danes and Mr. Swingler.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Brigadier Mackeson.]

JAPANESE TREATY OF PEACE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW
in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace with Japan and Protocol thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Minister incurred in carrying out the said Treaty and Protocol.—[Mr. Nutting.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

HOME GUARD [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 22nd November].

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW
in the Chair]

Question again proposed:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish the Home Guard and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenditure of any Government Department incurred in consequence of the coming into operation of the said Act.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I beg to move, to leave out "any Government," and to insert "the war."
I ought to apologise for "war" being spelt with a small "w" because it might be thought to refer to the next war instead of being the adjective describing the War Department. The object of this


Amendment is to attempt to limit in some way the number of Government Departments which can incur expenditure on the Home Guard. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that in their Election addresses and in their policy they were good enough to say that they would go through with a toothcomb all the various sums which might possibly be expended on military expenditure.
Fortunately, there has been a list of Government Departments published, and it is possible to ask—and I hope we shall have some answer from the Financial Secretary—which Government Departments he expects will spend under the Bill. If he does not like my Amendment that the money is to be restricted only to the War Department, then we might postpone the matter for a day to enable him to think out which Departments would be the proper ones to spend it. The Admiralty, it would seem, from what the hon. Gentleman said, cannot make up their minds whether they want to come in or not. In those circumstances is it not a little premature that we should allow money to be spent by a Department which cannot make up its mind?
What about the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries? Can we hear how it is to spend the money? What about Commonwealth Relations? It is a quite absurd state of affairs when we are told on the one hand that we are to economise and to be very careful how we allow any Department to spend money, and then, on the first military Measure being introduced, to allow every possible Department to spend money under the Financial Resolution.
It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying it is common form, because it is not. He has only to look at the other Money Resolutions on the Order Paper to see how he ought to redraft this one. We ought not to proceed to the Committee stage without knowing how the Minister of Education, now unfortunately excluded from the Cabinet, is to contribute. What is the sum which the Ministry of Education is to spend on the Home Guard?
What about the Ministry of Food? Is that Ministry to call out the Home Guard under some circumstances? What about the Foreign Office? I do not see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs here, but perhaps he will have

something to say about this. What about the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the Ministry of Health? The Leader of the House is here and perhaps he will tell us how his Department is to take part in the activities of the Home Guard. Then there is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Perhaps that is the secret of the housing plan—that the Home Guard will be called out to deal with things with which Departments have failed to deal.
Then there are the Law Officers, and the Lord President of the Council, the general co-ordinator. Perhaps he is to call them out. Is his the Department by which this money is to be spent? There are also the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. Under this Resolution even His Majesty's Household would be entitled to spend money on the Home Guard. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, in view of the advice to use pikes in the past, will be called in to give technical and expert advice.
It is really quite absurd when we have this Bill and this Financial Resolution and the Government come to the Committee and cannot make up their minds which Department is to spend this money. Before the Committee passes a Resolution of this kind we ought to have an answer as to which Department is to spend the money.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I am rather surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) moving this Amendment because, knowing his reputation for skill in research in the past, I expected, when I read the Amendment, a surprise bomb which would prove to me that the Amendment was not as naïve as I originally thought it to be. I find my original thoughts are confirmed. Therefore, as briefly as possible, I should like to explain the position to the hon. and learned Member, who, I think, has not been entirely worthy of his past researches.
It has always been the procedure with any Government that there are certain responsibilities for services concerned with all legislation which is carried out by other Government Departments concerned. Indeed, allowances are made within those Government Departments for such services. This procedure was


reviewed by the late Government in June, 1950. If the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch would like to continue his researches, it is in Cmd. 796. They confirmed that they considered this procedure to be the most economical method of fulfilling the functions required.
The hon. and learned Member asked me what Government Department was concerned, and he ranged from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to many other interesting and amusing guesses. I can tell him exactly who is concerned. There is the Exchequer and Audit Department, who are concerned with the cost of audit. There is the Treasury Solicitor, who is concerned with the cost of certain legal consultations. There is the Stationery Office, which is concerned with stationery and printing. There is the Central Office of Information, which is concerned with publicity and recruiting—[Laughter.]—on a somewhat reduced scale. There is the Ministry of Pensions, which is concerned with payments of disability pensions mentioned in the Bill—not on a reduced scale. There is the Post Office, which is concerned with inland post, telegraph and telephone services and the organisation for the enrolment which I outlined on the Second Reading of the Bill.
I can tell the hon. and learned Member exactly what the implications would be if I were to accept his Amendment. I would have to set up within the War Office and there would have to be within the Departments concerned a special system of accounting so that the War Office might repay to those Departments for their essential services the funds they had expended. The substance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is this. He is asking me to institute a system which would inevitably bring about an increase in the number of civil servants in Whitehall. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that he is pursuing the late Government's policy in this respect, but I can assure him that it is the policy of the present Government to resist that trend at all costs. Therefore, I say that I much regret that I am forced to refuse this Amendment, both from the point of view of how things have worked in the past and from the

point of view of the implications of engaging extra staff if I were to accept it.

Mr. Bing: When the right hon. Gentleman says "at all costs" does he not mean "at almost all costs"? Is he suggesting that the whole object of the Government is to do away with civil servants? If that is so, surely it is an argument for doing away with the right hon. Gentleman himself. Surely he means "at almost all costs." Will he accept from me that if he has decided which Government Departments are to contribute it would be better to set them out in the Financial Resolution? Why should we have this sloppy system continued for a length of time? Would it not be better if the Financial Resolution were so drafted that it meant what it said?
I would be prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to set down the Departments which he thinks ought to contribute to the cost of the Home Guard. I accept that it is valuable to employ the services of the Central Office of Information. But do let us make our Financial Resolutions clear. It will save a lot of time if Parliament is able to have a clear picture of what Government Departments are to spend.
We do not want to spend all night on other Measures discussing this matter. I do hope that this suggestion will be adopted, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to postpone the Financial Resolution tonight and will set down the Departments which are going to incur any expenditure so that we can all see what the position is. In those circumstances, I should be pleased to oblige the Committee by withdrawing my Amendment.

The Chairman: Does the hon. and learned Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Bing: No, Sir Charles.

Amendment negatived.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish the Home Guard and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenditure of any Government department incurred in consequence of the coming into operation of the said Act.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

FESTIVAL PLEASURE GARDENS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.28 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The powers given by Parliament to operate the Festival Pleasure Gardens came to an abrupt end on 11th November. Thereafter, the Festival Gardens Ltd.—which I propose to refer to as "the Company"—could do nothing but demolish the paraphernalia of the fun fair and reinstate Battersea Park. That being the legal position, the House will appreciate that the Government inherited an awkward timetable. We found we had either to take an uncomfortably quick decision or be responsible for delays which might ruin the prospects of a successful season next year.
If we had held up a decision the Company assured us it would have been difficult for them to keep their staff together, and if this Bill had been brought in after Christmas there would not have been time left for fixing up contracts and making the arrangements for re-opening next April. I could not forget the early history of the Gardens this year when gross mismanagement resulted in a disgraceful waste of public money. As I see it, those blunders, or most of them, were the direct consequence of leaving decisions too late. Nobody wants that to happen again.
On the other hand, a quick decision to continue the Gardens must be something of a gamble—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is still a gamble."]—for we had only a few days in which to check the estimates of next season's results. Nevertheless, I am sure we are right to run this risk, and before I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I feel I should put before them the reasons which led us to this decision.
There are two general points to which I would first draw the attention of the House. It has been said that the Government are breaking their word in going on with the Gardens. I have looked into that allegation and find that it is not correct. I think the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will

confirm that the previous Government always took the position that if, by experience, a considerable public demand was found to exist, then Parliament would be free to continue the Gardens beyond one season.
The second point is that the London County Council are as much interested in the Gardens as the Government. After all, Battersea Park is an L.C.C. park. It is of interest to recall that the L.C.C. considered this matter on 31st July and passed a resolution stating that if—and I quote:
A continuation should be decided upon the Council would not raise objection to enabling legislation to permit an extension of not more than five years, but … that there should be an experimental period of two years … and that the consent of the Council should be required to any extension beyond two years.
The Government found, therefore, that they were free to decide whether to go on, and if they did so decide, then the L.C.C. would, on certain conditions, agree with their decision.
Now I turn to last season's results. Both attendance and profits outstripped expectations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and 8,031,000 people visited the Gardens. The Company made checks to find out where those vast crowds came from. These tests were very interesting, for the proportion of Londoners was never less than 70 per cent. and at the end of the season rose to 88 per cent., showing that even in the Festival year the Gardens were, by and large, a London affair. At the very height of the season, visitors from the provinces were 25 per cent. and visitors from overseas were 5 per cent.
Sir Alexander Maxwell, the Chairman of the British Travel and Holidays Association, has stated that these Gardens are a most valuable attraction to overseas visitors—an attraction of a kind, he says, of which London stands in great need. His opinion is that they should be continued, and this is an aspect of the matter which, in present circumstances, we must keep in mind.
There is one other fact about the visitors I should like to mention. I understand that there was some speculation about how well these great crowds would behave in the amusement park. Well, hon. Members will not be surprised


to hear that the eight million people conducted themselves in the most orderly and good-humoured way, and gave no trouble to anybody.
I come now to the money side of the Gardens. The House is really in the position of shareholders who are entitled to an account of the company's affairs, and I propose briefly to give the provisional figures for last year. Gross revenue for last season was £1,271,000. From that figure falls to be deducted the operating expenses of £466,000, giving a trading profit of £805,000, which is the equivalent to 43 per cent. of the aggregate capital expenditure and liabilities. It would have been higher if the borrowings had not been so great, which would have been the case under private enterprise. The total of the borrowings from the Government, the L.C.C. and the Festival Office reached £1,432,000. The sum of £270,000 has just been repaid, leaving the debts at today's date at £1,162,000.
The House will want to know what would be the position if the Company were wound up now. On present estimates, after making allowance for the costs of reinstatement, there would be a further modest repayment, but this would not benefit the taxpayer, because under the agreement between the Government and the L.C.C., the L.C.C.'s loan of £200,000 ranks first up to £160,000, so that to wind up now would leave the taxpayer with a loss of over £1 million.
I said that last season's profit exceeded the estimate, and for that excellent result we have to thank the Board of the Company and their staff. I wish to pay a very special tribute to the Chairman, Lieut.-General Sir Charles King, and to the Managing Director, Major Leslie Joseph. It is very largely due to the efforts of those two gentlemen that the Company was pulled round after a very bad start.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point will he tell the House what has happened to the £535,000 balance of the £800,000 profit?

Mr. Eccles: Part of it has been spent on capital expenditure by the Company: The rest is retained in the Company's account in case there should be reinstatement.

Mr. Stokes: What is left?

Mr. Eccles: Not as much as I should like—I think it is £170,000.
I come now to the estimates for next season. In the Festival year there were eight million attendances. The question arises. How many can we expect in a normal season? We have had estimates which range from four million to six million—that is, from a half to three-quarters of last season's attendances. The opinion in the amusement trade is generally in favour of five million. They look for a five million attendance. The estimates which I am about to give are for the net profit over the two years 1952 and 1953 taken together. The figures are arrived at after allowing for all foreseeable expenditure on maintenance and capital account during that period.
On the basis of a four million attendance, the profit is expected to be £365,000; on the basis of five million it might be nearly £800,000. From now on the Board are confident that all capital expenditure can be financed out of revenue. Both the Government and the L.C.C. want to see new expenditure kept as low as possible consistent with maintaining satisfactory standards. Our directors on the Board will watch this very carefully, but some capital expenditure will be necessary, and the passage of this Bill would carry with it the authority to keep the gardens and the structure in a good state. We cannot allow the standards to fall.
How reliable are these estimates? With so short a time the only test that one can apply is to look at the men who drew them up. Sir Charles King and Major Joseph have pulled the Company round, and have made a success of last season's operations. For that reason I have confidence in them, and I am very glad to tell the House that both these gentlemen have agreed to continue in the service of the Company. On their figures, there is no doubt about it, it would be wrong to wind up now. Our duty is quite clear. It is our duty to the taxpayer to take this chance to recover his money. When the taxpayer has got his money back, then the Government will think again about continuing in the amusement business.

Mr. W. Nally: We must have this perfectly clear. The figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just advanced, he is not advancing on the responsibility of two very distinguished administrators. After all, there is a question of accountants and people who have examined all this business. The real truth of the matter is that those responsible as a whole have advanced these figures, and His Majesty's Government have accepted them as reasonably reliable. We must have no misunderstanding about that.

Mr. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman is putting a point which is a fair one. These estimates show possible attendance next year.

Mr. Nally: That is not the point.

Mr. Eccles: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, all the rest of the estimates flow from that of how many people will attend next yer. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that I have done my best to check, from all those who are experts in the amusement business, what is likely to be the attendance next year. I think the estimate is conservative, but I cannot assure the House how many people will choose to go to the Gardens next year. The profit depends on the reliability of that estimate, and there is no one in this country who could guarantee that it is right. We are doing what anyone in private business does every day of his life—taking a reasonable risk.
I was saying that the Government will think again about continuing in the amusement business once we have got that money back. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South that his peerage, which he accepted so eagerly, will not be hereditary. A Conservative Government would not have put money in an amusement park. We think that that kind of business is unsuited to State ownership and State management, and we do not like laying ourselves open to the charge of using public money to compete in a trade which private enterprise can run successfully. But we did inherit the Battersea Gardens as a going concern, in which the London County Council are our partners, and which owes both of us large sums of money. The Government cannot at this stage withdraw; we must carry on and try to get these loans repaid.
If we succeed we shall be free to reshape the future on quite a different basis.
May I say a word about one or two objections which are made against continuing the Gardens? The House will judge that I sympathise with those who dislike to see a Conservative Government in the amusement business, but I cannot sympathise with those who use this argument to conceal their opposition to an amusement park of any kind in London. London is just as good a place for a fun fair as anywhere else. Provided that competition is fair there is everything to be said for it. Starting from the position which we have inherited—and we cannot go back on that—I undertake to do all I can to see that the competition is fair.

Mr. Nally: What does the right hon. Gentleman call fair?

Mr. Eccles: Fair, so that the company does not have advantages over a private one.
On the other hand, I think the objections which come from the residents in Battersea and Chelsea deserve to be considered by the House. It cannot be to everyone's taste to have a fun fair whirling and twirling on his doorstep, and I have asked the Company to pay particular attention to the complaints of local people. Compared with the millions who get their pleasure in the Gardens these people are only a tiny minority; but I do not care how few they are they deserve to be heard and they shall be heard.

Mr. Nally: Would the Minister care to contrast that with a survey of Brighton, Blackpool, or any other of the seaside towns, as to how many of the inhabitants approve of the pin-table saloons within a radius of 50 yards of their properties?

Mr. Eccles: I am now concerned with Battersea Park. Those who come from the seaside resorts are well able to speak for their residents.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when he winds up, will deal with those requests and grievances of which we have information, and he will give some details of what we intend to do next year. At this late hour I hardly think the House will expect me to go through the Bill Clause by Clause. It provides the framework within which the Company can operate the Gardens in the coming year. I would,


however, like to mention two points. Clause 1 (1) makes provision for keeping the Gardens open until November, 1956, except that I can direct their closing at the end of November, 1953, by means of an Order not later than 15th October that year. If the London County Council request me to do so I must make such an Order, and if that Order is made then I shall take steps to see that the Company reinstate the park without delay.
Under Clause 1 (2), the Company is given power to hold land and execute works in Battersea Park
subject to such terms and conditions …. as may be agreed between the County Council and the Company.
This means that the Company and the Council have to work out a new occupation agreement, and I will use my influence to see that this is done without delay. I am confident that, as the interests of the Government and the County Council are the same, we shall be able to meet their reasonable desire for safeguards.
In the Schedule, various consequential Amendments are made to the three Acts under which the Gardens operated last summer.
I should like to close my remarks by a personal observation directed to those who have told me that, the times being out of joint, we ought to close the Gardens because they provide frivolity and nothing but frivolity. I cannot agree with that. I wish to advance three reasons to the contrary. First, there is the possibility of spreading good taste. The layout and structures of the Gardens offer infinite opportunities to influence and charm the eye. There is a great deal of colour there, and colour, when it is blended with skill and gaiety, gives lasting pleasure. It ought to be as easy to decorate a fun fair in good taste as in bad taste.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever seen a private enterprise fun fair that pleases the eye?

Mr. Eccles: I certainly have enjoyed it very much.

Hon. Members: Where?

Mr. Eccles: I like Blackpool.

Mr. Nally: Which fun fair at Blackpool?

Mr. Eccles: I was saying that there is opportunity in the Gardens for the artist with paint and the artist with flowers. All our people love gardens and there, in Battersea, is afforded one more chance to show what we can do with the beds and the borders of a London park. I set great store on improving the flowers next year. I did not myself think that they were very good this year.
Secondly, it is good to have a legitimate excuse—I do not say to make a fool of one's self—but to let oneself go. It might be that City life has become much too conventional and inhibited by the fear of a sour look from one of the neighbours. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Toryism let loose."] Nowadays people cannot cut any kind of a caper without some busybody making them feel ashamed of themselves. That is bad. But at a fun fair everyone forgets his worry, blows off steam, behaves like a child at a party, and expects to see his neighbours doing exactly the same. He laughs at them and he does not criticise. That seems to me very healthy and very English.
Thirdly, and this is by far the most important consideration to my mind, the Gardens are the place where the whole family can take their recreation together. Father, mother, children, and even grandchildren can join in the same fun. One cannot very well take the children to race meetings, football matches, cinemas, and so on, but a fun fair throws a bridge across the generations. It positively encourages the young and old to mix their laughter. That must be a good thing.
Last week a woman who has no family of her own told me she had been half a dozen times to Battersea simply to sit in a deck chair and watch other people's children enjoy themselves. Last night at Andover station a porter greatly encouraged me by saying, "My wife and I give you a good mark for keeping the Gardens open." You see, Mr. Speaker, Battersea provides more than frivolity. It does something to keep the family spirit alive. And with these thoughts in mind I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: I find myself in a somewhat unusual position because I had hoped to introduce this Bill myself. But, be that as it may, I welcome the way in which the Minister of Works has introduced it and the fact that the Tory Party as a whole, maybe with some exceptions, seem to have become such complete converts to something we advocated doing some months ago and which they voted against. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Last June and July, when I introduced the Bill.

Mr. Eccles: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind telling the House when we voted against it?

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman and his friends voted solidly against me when I tried to get the Gardens going and get some money. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right, let it go. It does not really matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"] Certainly, if I am incorrect I withdraw, but it is all in keeping with the Festival spirit that one should make mistakes.
Whatever hon. Members may say, the Gardens have been a great success. As the right hon. Gentleman said there have been some eight million people there, which is more than anyone expected, and I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Lewisham South (Mr. H. Morrison) for his perspicacity in pushing on with this scheme in the face of very considerable opposition. It was entirely due to his conception of what London wants that we have got it. I would join the Minister in congratulating both the gentlemen who came to my assistance when I first took over, Sir Charles King and Major Joseph. They have done a magnificent job, particularly Major Joseph, who gave up the whole of his time free to make the whole scheme effective.
One thing was not added by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think it should be added. The men who built these Gardens came in for a good deal of criticism at the time of their construction. I have mentioned this matter on previous occasions. I do not suggest for a moment that there were not things done wrongfully and wrongly, but the Gardens never would have been finished had there not been that body of conscientious craftsmen on the site who really got the work

through. I think that some tribute should be paid tonight to the work they did.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no breach of promise. The promise was that if the Gardens were a success an effort should be made to continue them. Nobody in his senses would have dreamed that an enterprise of this kind could have been made to pay within one year, though if we look at the original estimate in the light of what actually happened and the marginal profit earned, it was not really so far out. That was not due to anybody's calculations; it just happened to be one of those things that turned up.
As for the objections raised before I gave up responsibility, I would say that they were mostly not frivolous, but concerned with those who live in the neighbourhood. The two things mostly objected to were fireworks and loudspeakers. In my time of responsibility, the fireworks were reduced to a minimum, from six performances to two; and, when we examined it, the loudspeakers had nothing to do with the fun fair as such but were merely those used by the police in directing traffic. It would be frivolous to close down the fun fair because the police were getting away traffic in an orderly fashion.
There was another protest that we had taken too much of the Gardens. That was not true: we took 37 acres out of 297, and arrangements have been made so that the river walk will be open before Christmas. Then there were objections laid against me by people who seemed to have an interest in seaside resorts. But the Tourist Association state that little or no difference was made in their business results. Although the park proprietors from Blackpool and Southend protested through the Amusement Park Proprietors' Association, representing 30 members, the Amusement Caterers' Association, with 700 members, supported the continuance of the Gardens. I do not know whether those figures have changed since I left, but that was the situation at the time.
I would suggest one or two things to which attention should be paid, since the Gardens are to be reopened—and we are glad that they are to be reopened, certainly for two years and probably longer. London has got what it wants and can see that it keeps it; and I support the


Minister in insisting that the Gardens shall be maintained in a beautiful condition. We had some trouble this year because of our late start, but I hope that a really responsible horticultural adviser will be retained to see to it that the standard of flowers and shrubs, the state of the grass, etc., is properly maintained.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman keeps insisting that this is a London enterprise. The whole excuse for it is that it was a national festival.

Mr. Stokes: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was here when the Minister made it clear that of the eight million people who turned up about 70 per cent.—about six million—were Londoners. It is no use trying to present Battersea Park as outside London. By no stretch of the imagination can I imagine that. This is in the main, and will continue to be, a London show.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would it not be better, then, if we were quite honest about this and called it a London Bill?

Mr. Stokes: It is both London and national. The question is: Should the Gardens be continued? The answer is that London has not had anything like it, has not had enough, and proposes to keep it on. I would be much surprised if any party tried to take it away.
I hope that the Minister will see that the cultural side, as well as the slap and tickle—I suppose I ought not to say that—is continued. In a way, the cultural side suffered this year; we had not enough time to attend to all the detail. But there is a magnificent open-air theatre and the riverside theatre has great charm and great possibilities.
Further, I think that this year the general illuminations were spoiled because one bridge was not lit up. I hope that next year both will be illuminated. I do not know whose fault it was; certainly, it was not mine. Chelsea bridge was never lit up. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was never there at night.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): What surprised me was that the Minister responsible did not know who was to blame.

Mr. Stokes: At least two parties were to blame, and I was not. I am not blaming anyone.
I was suggesting that the Gardens will be better next year in the light of our experiences. I hope that whatever restrictions there may be upon expenditure this year we shall not be penny wise and pound foolish—or whatever the saying is—over making the buildings good enough for two years, by not spending enough. Feeling certain that these Gardens will go on for five years, and longer, I hope that this work will not be half done and result in the whole thing having to be done again at an unnecessarily early date.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he winds up, to tell us whether the arrangements with the main contractor have been settled. The Minister said nothing about that. There was a considerable sum outstanding, and a dispute about how much was to be paid. That no doubt explains in part the considerable balance remaining in the hands of the Company. I do not object, but I expect that that is the main reason.
What is the anticipated expenditure in the way of rehabilitation between now and the opening next year, which I consider to be a pivotal point? I would also like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether Major Joseph is to continue in the same capacity, or whether another managing director is to be appointed, with Major Joseph acting as an adviser. We on this side of the House give the Bill our general support, and we hope the House will do likewise, and that London will appreciate she has something of which she can be proud and which will give great encouragement to her citizens.

11.8 p.m.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: The House has enjoyed the breezy speech of the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). He certainly was imbued with the Festival spirit, not least when he said the result was fairly near the original estimate. My recollection is that the original estimate was that the Government should lend £550,000, and the London County Council £220,000, and that the whole thing should cost something like £770,000, against which a considerable profit was to be made. Comparison between that original estimate and the


actual result, which shows today a deficit of £1,162,000, shows that the right hon. Gentleman was well endowed with the Festival spirit.

Mr. Stokes: That is not what I meant, even if it sounded like that. I was trying to say that the results were on the right side, being so prodigious as £805,000 profit. I did not suggest that that sum included the total cost.

Captain Waterhouse: The House is in a little difficulty. We have to go by what the right hon. Gentleman said and not by what he meant. He said we voted against the Festival Gardens, which we never did, and then he said he did not mean that. Then he said the result nearly balanced the estimate, which he then said he did not mean. I do not want to pursue the matter with him at any great length, but there are two points which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend.
I cannot get away from a certain misgiving. I and other hon. Members on this side of the House spent three or four unpleasant weeks persuading our electors that State enterprises were not very desirable enterprises, and that State trading was to be avoided. Now, within a few weeks, we are asked to support this Bill. But we do not base ourselves on theories. We are prepared to take a practical view and if there is a proper reason for State trading and a State enterprise we are prepared to accept it.
Is there an adequate reason? We are undoubtedly in a period of crisis. We know, and we have too many signs about to enable us to doubt it, that we have had a period of extremely bad government. As a result of that we find ourselves in a parlous plight. We have a tremendous effort to make to re-arm, and to manufacture for export. I wonder if my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have considered just what these Festival Gardens will mean in terms of men and materials?
The right hon. Member for Ipswich said he hoped that the buildings would be kept up. We have had to make very stringent rules about starting any new industrial buildings at all. Can we really justify keeping up these Festival Gardens Buildings? I am the last person in the world to want to prevent anybody from cutting a proper caper. I think we have to go through life with a laugh. Unless

we can laugh at the things which happen now we shall all go to our graves in misery.
There is one question which I hope my hon. Friend will answer when he replies. What personnel is required for the remaining year or two to maintain these Gardens? Can we afford this cost at this time? What will be the ancillary costs in the way of transport and even of petrol? My right hon. Friend said that Sir Alexander Maxwell had said that the Gardens had brought in a considerable volume of tourist trade. I have a recollection that it was said by a right hon. Member opposite, when the late Government were in office, that the tourist traffic into this country this year had not materially increased. I do not know whether Sir Alexander Maxwell would support that statement.
We have a national balance of payments to make up and I should like some assurance that that balance has been carefully weighed, especially as regards the expenditure of labour and materials, since this is, in some other ways, a desirable project.

11.14 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: On behalf of the London County Council I should like to say a word of appreciation of the action of the Minister in bringing forward this Bill. We on the London County Council, for the most part, believed that the Festival Gardens would be welcomed by Londoners. We did not know, but we had a hunch. There were some members of the L.C.C. who were not quite so convinced as others, and there were members of a local borough council quite nearby who were not a bit convinced.
On the other hand, the Battersea Borough Council did feel that their park was likely to be the scene of a successful venture, and so it has turned out. As a matter of fact, Battersea Park has become far better known to London than ever before. It has always been a very delightful park. Occasionally, I have gone there from Tooting, where my own Tooting Bec Common is, and I have enjoyed the pleasant sights in the Battersea Park. People will have noticed on their way to the Gardens that there is a very delightful entrance surrounded by


beautiful beds of flowers which in themselves are a joy. In the Gardens people have come to enjoy woodland scenes and flowers in far greater numbers than they have ever done before.
Fortunately for the L.C.C., not only did the venture draw the crowds, but it drew the London crowds—sufficient crowds to make a pretty penny. Some of us on the L.C.C. who are perhaps cherishing ideas about future permanent gardens in London feel that venture may well help us towards their achievement. None of us is quite sure about all of it, but we favour the experiment which this Bill will enable us to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the taxpayers' expense."] An hon. Member speaks about the taxpayers' money, but the ratepayers' money is involved also, and we have no desire to spend ratepayers' money any more than the Government have any desire to spend taxpayers' money. We want the enterprise to stand on its own feet and we have no reason to suppose that it will not do so.
Of course, we do not know what will happen in the next two years, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. Even the most successful of our entrepreneurs do not really know: they have to take a gamble—and sometimes they gamble right and sometimes wrong.

Sir William Darling: With their own money.

Mrs. Corbet: Not always with their own money. I have known them gamble their shareholders' money and I have known times when they have lost their shareholders' money and it did not matter a scrap to them because it was the poor unprotected people's money that was lost. Hon. Members opposite only get concerned when the money is the ratepayers' and taxpayers': when it is provided by private shareholders they are not concerned.

Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing: Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing rose—

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The hon. Gentleman really is a bore.

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In spite of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, surely the hon. Lady recognises that there is a very

considerable difference between extracting money voluntarily subscribed for a public company and money extracted from the taxpayers, either locally or nationally. In the expenditure of that money there is a very great difference indeed.

Mrs. Corbet: I was not arguing that. What I was arguing was that it is quite possible for ordinary shareholders to lose money under the private enterprise system.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to know of an enterprise which has been conducted municipally I think he has need not to go further than Blackpool. I understand that some of their enterprises perform quite useful service in keeping down the rates and that there are quite a number of other seaside resorts who cash in on the London visitors coming to their towns, so helping them out with their rates. We think it may be possible to do that with London. We do not know whether we would make a profit or a loss for the rates, but we should want this to maintain itself year by year, not necessarily over a period of years.
We would not commit ourselves at this stage as to how it is to be done, but it might possibly be done through some kind of holding company. Those of us on the L.C.C. holding these views would like the experiment of the Pleasure Gardens to be continued in the heart of London. The London County Council have a financial stake. At the beginning, I think, they thought they would not get their money back in its entirety, but they were prepared to lose something. This continuance of the Gardens offers an opportunity of getting the money back, and, to that extent, of protecting the ratepayers.
We believe that these Gardens succeeded not only because they were part of the South Bank Exhibition, but because they were themselves attractive. Many hon. Members have heard people say, "We liked the South Bank but, after all, the Pleasure Gardens were the real thing about the Festival Exhibition." I know the case was put the other way round, too. I have heard a lot of people say they had no use for the Festival Gardens. On the whole, however, the great majority of people approved the Festival


Gardens even more than the South Bank Exhibition.
I do hope that we shall agree to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight. The Minister referred to Clause 1 (2), under which the Company are authorised to continue to hold the area in Battersea Park subject to terms and conditions to be agreed between the Company and the Council, but the Bill does not provide for what should happen were agreement not to be reached. I rather gathered from what the Minister said that what he said was intended to cover this point, and we hope that he will give a further assurance that he will use his good offices to secure, by consultation with the Company and the Council, that agreement will be reached. If agreement is not reached, it would appear that the Company will, nevertheless, have the right to continue operating in Battersea Park. I should be glad to have the Minister's assurance on this matter.

Mr. Eccles: I will give that assurance, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is impossible really to give either the L.C.C. or the Government a complete veto. We both have the common interest. I am confident, therefore, that the occupation agreement between the Company and the Council can be successfully worked out. This is one of those occasions on which one simply must not contemplate disagreement, but go into the business determined to reach agreement.

Mrs. Corbet: I agree. I think the Minister is completely right, but it is just as well to have on record that that is what he thinks, and I am satisfied with that assurance. We shall be glad to give our blessing to this Bill, and we shall use our best endeavours to see it succeeds and that both the Government and ourselves recoup ourselves as far as is humanly possible.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: It is absolutely beyond dispute that the Festival Gardens this year have given a great deal of pleasure to millions of people. But what seems to me deplorable is that so many, when they speak about a fact like that, are ready to push out of their minds the cost of it all. Up to now in this debate there seems to have been from the other side of the House the sug-

gestion that all that can be covered up by saying, as, for instance, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said, "It is in keeping with the Festival that one should make mistakes."
That may be the epitaph to put on the tomb of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), but the day of reckoning came on 25th October for many who thought that the Festival spirit would save them from all the mistakes that had been made. In this matter I can thoroughly agree with the Minister. I have thought it over carefully, and I believe that it would be wrong to wind up the Festival Gardens now.

Mr. H. Morrison: A welcome change.

Mr. Brooke: It is no change by me at all.

Mr. Morrison: Come over here.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) will confirm that in the London County Council, in July, an amendment I moved specifically stated that it was thoroughly desirable for financial considerations that the keeping open of the Gardens for a longer period should be examined. As the result of the figures that the Minister has given this evening and such other information as I have been able to gather, the financial case for keeping them open has been proved up to the hilt.
This scheme, which has attracted eight million visitors and which has given an enormous amount of pleasure, has cost the net sum of over £1 million of public money, and there is a duty on all of us, wherever we sit and whatever our political predilections, to see how much of that money we can recover. While appreciating what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) said about the manpower that may be involved, I do not see how any Government could close their eyes to the hope of a substantial recovery, a recovery which, over a period of years, is likely to amount to something between £200,000 and £600,000.
What I regret is that people like the right hon. Member for Ipswich simply say that London likes this, and seem to imagine that that settles it. London has liked it in Festival year, but up to the present we have no substantial evidence


of how long London will go on liking it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, will recollect that in early consultations that took place about this plan, when I was brought into some of them, one of the considerations which we all had in mind was that anything in the nature of a fun fair was apt to degenerate over a period of years if it does not continue to tickle the public's fancy. I do not know whether this can be processed up enough to draw new people and new interest, but there is a danger that it might run down. Certainly, if we have a wet summer, it would destroy a great deal of the public enthusiasm which this year it has undoubtedly created.
On those grounds I myself would have arranged to prolong the opening for one year at a time, if that had been possible. Nevertheless, I quite realise, after studying some of these figures, that that would be an uneconomic proposition. The work that was done there was planned on the basis of one year's occupation, and a great deal of money will have to be spent if the Gardens are to be reopened in 1952. Much the same amount of money would suffice whether it is for one year or two. Therefore, on those grounds there is clearly a substantial case for making it two years or nothing.
I am very glad indeed that the Bill contains a provision for there to be a break after two years if it is found that expectations are not being fulfilled. For myself, I should have preferred to include optional breaks after three or four years. It seems a pity to make it two years or five years, and nothing in between. I am not seeking to make any party point, but it is quite a possibility that the right period for this experiment is a total of four years, and not a total of three or six years. Nevertheless, we can face that when we get to it. These next two years should give to all of us the opportunity to study whether something of this kind is desirable as a permanency in London, in Battersea Park or somewhere else.
The hon. Lady was speaking about the London County Council's interest in the case for riverside gardens as a permanent attraction in London. From the beginning I have thought that it was well worth investigation. Whether this experiment

is on the right lines or not I do not think one can tell from a single year's opening, and that in a festival year; and I feel sure she would agree that Battersea Park is not yet proved to be the right place for something of that kind.
I think it was the Minister himself who said that London is just as good a place for a fun fair as anywhere else. I accept that, but some of us are not yet certain that Battersea Park is the right part of London that should be dedicated to this purpose. Nevertheless, we do not make enough of our river in London generally, and it may well be that from this experiment in Battersea Park we can all learn lessons of permanent value to the amenities of London.
Neither the Minister, nor the hon. Lady, who said she was speaking for the London County Council, made any reference to one of the provisos included in the London County Council resolution of 31st July, when the Council asked that in the course of detailed examination the possibility should be explored of providing in the Royal Parks the games facilities which would otherwise be provided in the Festival Gardens area. This is a very special London interest. At the present time, owing to the occupation of part of Battersea Park by the Festival Gardens there are 10 fewer cricket pitches available to schoolchildren and others in Battersea Park than before the war.
Those of us who go round giving away prizes at London schools are made aware constantly of the serious lack of cricket facilities for the children in London. It seems a most absurd thing that in the neighbourhood of Lords and the Oval literally thousands of children do not get a chance of any organized cricket on a proper pitch all through the year. We of the London County Council—and the hon. Lady will grant me this—made the suggestion in the first instance from our side.

Mrs. Corbet: The hon. Gentleman will tell the House that he wanted to make it a condition of the Council's consent to the Festival Gardens going on in Battersea, and that the majority party were not prepared to go to that length.

Mr. Brooke: I certainly think that this House should place the duty on the Minister to bestir himself more than his Ministry has done up to now to see where


space can be found in the Royal Parks for making good to the children of London something that they are losing through the Festival Gardens. In the whole of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park there are only four cricket pitches.

Sir W. Darling: A crying shame!

Mr. Brooke: If the Ministry of Works says that this is to continue for a period of years in Battersea Park, and that that is the right course for 37 acres of the park, should not the Ministry, at the same time, be ready to examine more vigorously whether it can help the London Education Authority by finding more playing space in the Royal Parks?
I trust the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up, will assure us that that plea from the L.C.C. has not been merely set aside and that a further resolution, recently sent to the Ministry, will receive the most earnest consideration. I was glad of what I heard the Minister say on the subject of trying to avoid local annoyance to the people of Battersea and Chelsea. These coming months before the Gardens re-open next May, should afford opportunity for proper consultations with the Battersea Borough Council and the Chelsea Borough Council, not on the principle of re-opening—because this is a matter for the House to decide tonight—but on the detailed happenings which, during the six months of this year's opening, did cause a certain amount of annoyance, trouble, lack of sleep, and so forth, to a number of people in the locality.
I, from my local experience, can tell how this kind of thing occurs. I am the hon. Member for Hampstead and, believe me, although the Hampstead Heath fair on Bank Holidays gives an enormous amount of pleasure to thousands of Londoners, it is exceedingly annoying for many people in Hampstead who have to hear sirens blaring for hours on Easter Mondays.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting there are any complaints other than those I mentioned, namely, fireworks and police controlling the traffic?

Mr. Brooke: I have heard complaints about car parks, traffic jams, and the like, and all these matters are well worth investigation. The bodies with which they should be taken up are the Battersea Borough Council and the

Chelsea Borough Council. The question of detail should be thrashed out with the elected representatives of Battersea and Chelsea.
I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance he gave to the hon. Lady, the Member for Peckham, on the point of using his good offices to try and clear up disagreements, because that might otherwise lead to an unfortunate deadlock. Let none of us, at this stage, get preconceived ideas about what will eventuate two or three years hence. Let us take this two-year period as experimental and learn all we can from it in all directions. What we want to discover is how we can enhance the amenities of London for the benefit of everybody.

Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing: This is very important. My hon. Friend is stressing the fact that he wishes the House to vote a Bill to enhance the amenities of London, and London only. This is not the L.C.C. Will he explain?

Mr. Brooke: I am within the recollection of the House when I spoke of enhancing the amenities of London for the benefit of everybody. This is a Bill which pin-points a particular locality, but I am not proposing to put a ring fence around Battersea Park and a veto on the inhabitants of Weston-super-Mare from visiting it.
Frankly, I do not think the expenditure of public money already incurred on the Festival Gardens could possibly have been justified if it was thought that Londoners alone would come to the place. At present, we are trying to recover public money—from everybody, not only from Londoners. Londoners only cannot support a venture of this scale. What we must do is to seek to recover the money and it is primarily on the financial ground that I am ready to further this Bill.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: I would hesitate, were I not emboldened by the departure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), to intervene in this debate between representatives of the London County Council. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), that it is entirely fitting for the House to discuss amenities in London on behalf of the


people of this country and the world. We were encouraged by the new spirit of gaiety in the speech of the Minister. We are all glad the Conservative Party has been converted to this attitude and we shall hope for a brighter life for this House and, indeed, for this country if they continue it.
Hon. Members took to task my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for indulging in what might be called a piece of hyperbole. He accused the former Opposition of voting against the Festival Gardens Bill and the Festival Gardens as a whole. It is, of course, quite true that they did not; but quite a number of them showed repeatedly by their attitude their dislike for it. If my right hon. Friend was misled by the contradiction in the performance and attitude of hon. Members opposite, it is not surprising in view of the way in which they voted as opposed to the way they spoke.

Mr. James Hudson: On the point of what the Tories actually did, there was the introduction into this House, on 25th June, of a Bill to raise a further £1 million to make the Gardens possible. The whole debate was upon the question of the Gardens and the making of them possible by expending this further money. When that was put to the vote the actual results were: on the Labour side of the House, 255 votes; on the Tory side, 228. Among those who voted was the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill tonight and I observe that the hon. Gentleman who has been doing most of the interrupting did not vote at all.

Mr. Shackleton: I appreciate the short interlude from my hon. Friend and I realised that London would have to come back into the debate very soon. He is, of course, entirely right and we now have the position clear.
The Minister of Works did make a number of remarks—some of a partisan nature. I do not propose to take them up, but he knows perfectly well this undertaking could never have been sponsored by private enterprise and that remark was merely made as part of a partisan attitude. I think we should allow him to make these little points because we are immensely gratified by the conversion of the Conservative Party to this new spirit of "Merrie England" and we are glad

that he should have taken this step. He has suggested that in the interests of private enterprise he will see there is fair competition. Now, if he is really going to do that, may I ask him to remove the most severe disability imposed upon the Festival Gardens, namely, the closing of the Festival Gardens fun fair on Sunday?
One of the most surprising things about the previous debate was that the Conservative Party—that well-known representative of Sabbatarianism in this country—voted 250 to 12 against the opening of the fun fair on Sunday. At that time we were repeatedly told, particularly by representatives of seaside resorts, where they had fun fairs open on Sundays, and which, therefore, would have suffered from London's competition, that we should not consider mere financial factors in arriving at our decision and that, in effect, they would not hold the former Government responsible for the loss that might be sustained. They had shown just how inadequate that inference and promise was.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member is taking a very narrow view. Is he not aware that the whole of the west and the south-west of the country was practically unanimous against the opening of the Gardens on Sunday? If this is a national and not a London concern, it is right to consider that view.

Mr. Shackleton: I do not understand that. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there was a Gallup poll of the west and south-west of England?

Mr. Wilson: One hardly met anyone who took any other view.

Mr. Shackleton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has a most accurate opinion of what the west and south-west of England really thought. If the opinion of the country had been consulted there would have been an overwhelming vote among Londoners and also the people of Lancashire.

Mr. Wilson: We are talking about Great Britain, not merely England.

Mr. Shackleton: I had probably better not talk too much for Lancashire, which has had its fair say on the Japanese Peace Treaty.
If there is to be talk about fair competition it must be borne in mind that there


is not fair competition—that there are fun fairs throughout the country open on Sunday where a charge is made for admission. There are grave anomalies that it is the duty of the House to face by establishing the rule of law both for public and for private enterprise. That surely is the new spirit that the Conservative Party have discovered now that the responsibility is on their shoulders.
I welcome the Government's decision and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary, who had more sympathy and intelligence than his colleagues on the subject of the Festival Gardens, is to wind up the debate. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Carson: I should like to endorse the last point made by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). I was one of the 12 Conservatives who voted for Sunday opening. I have an amusement park in my area that does open on Sunday, and it seems to me that if we condemn one we must condemn the other and that if we approve one we must approve the other. I can see no valid reason why the Festival Gardens should not be allowed to open on Sunday.
I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that I am in rather a special position tonight, inasmuch as I am going to be the only one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who represents a coastal or seaside resort to give unstinted praise to this Bill. I have caught your eye, Sir, sooner than I expected, but I feel that there may be some opposition.
If there is to be opposition, fair though though it may be, I hope that we shall not have a glorified post mortem. I like playing bridge and post mortems are fascinating, but they do not really serve a useful purpose. Let us not go back and harp about the past. This Bill is not helped by the rather faint praise by which it is damned by some of my hon. Friends, or the outright condemnation I think it may get from other of my hon. Friends.
We in coastal resorts or elsewhere, whether we sit on this side of the House or on the other, have to face two basic facts, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). London has a fun fair, and London likes it. There is no doubt about that. Whether

it is used by the rest of the country or not, which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing) seems intent on establishing, does not, I think, enter into the argument. I am quite certain that London will continue to have its funfair. I think that for the time being it is merely academic to argue whether it is to be run by public enterprise or privately. The thing to do now is to see that it is run. Since we want to get back money which we have not yet regained, it seems sensible to continue to run it under public enterprise.
I shall come in a moment to the objections of the seaside resorts, but, apart from them, I think that it ought to go on, because we need light and colour in our capital city. I disagree with the Minister of Works. I think that we need frivolity as well. I do not see that there is any objection to making a fool of oneself in a fun fair. I took my five years old daughter to it, and probably made a fool of myself. I ate fish and chips out of a paper bag and I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and spent more than I could afford. But why should not one be stupid and enjoy oneself sometimes? Even Members of Parliament should not have to be pompous all the time. If they are I do not think they will be good Members.
Now let me turn to the particular bogey which I know that some of my hon. Friends representing seaside resorts sincerely fear. They feel that if the fun fair continues it is not going to be helpful to seaside trade, in the summer season. This fear seems to be felt more strongly among resorts having pleasure gardens or amusement parks of their own. I have, in my area, what I think is one of the best amusement parks in the country—Dreamland. There is another in Ramsgate, called Merrie England. Possibly we all think that those in our own area is best. I certainly have a scenic railway which is I think acknowledged to be the best, and which is certainly better than the railway at the Festival Gardens last year. It makes me feel sicker when I go on it.
I do not believe that if the Gardens are opened next year it is going to make the slightest difference to the trade of the seaside resorts. I would ask my hon. Friends to consider the matter in the cold, hard logic of daylight, and to put aside


for a moment the big bogey of which they seem to be so frightened. The average person is not going to say, "We will not have a holiday by the sea, but will go to the Festival Pleasure Gardens once or twice instead." It is said that receipts were down at the resorts last year. But last year we had an extremely wet summer, the Festival of Britain was in full swing, and we shall not, as seaside resorts, next year be competing with the Festival itself. We shall merely be competing with a fun fair in the capital city.
If we cannot meet that with amenities and amusements which will bring people to our resorts, we are not going to be much help in giving holidays to our people. I believe that we can provide that service and that there is nothing to be frightened of. I hope that the Gardens will remain open and that they are a success. I think they will be. Given a reasonable summer I think the Minister's estimate of attendances was conservative. I hope that we shall not do too much harking back, but will give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Perhaps, as the hon. Member in whose constituency these Festival Gardens happen to be actually situated, I may, at long last, be able to say a word or two on the subject. I did not feel able to do so when sitting on the opposite side of the House, although I listened to hon. Members from Scotland and other remote parts of the country telling us how we in London should or should not enjoy ourselves.
It has always seemed absurd to me that this should become a party question, even though there was a close vote in the House on 25th June. I was one of those who three years ago had a lot of doubt about this enterprise starting up in Battersea Park. I had these doubts as one who has always been a great lover of the London parks, and a believer in the principle that once the public had gained access to a park in London, none of that park ought ever to be alienated from them. I thought there was a particular danger, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, that the section of the park set apart for the Gardens might, if

we are not careful, become permanently alienated in the winter-time. That is one of the chief problems.
I did, therefore, take part, with various other representatives from Battersea, in persuading the then Lord President of the Council to try this plan for one experimental year, rather than to go forward for a long period, so that we could see how the people of London, and the people of Battersea especially, actually liked it. I was entirely converted, and changed my mind as a result of the experience of this summer.
I was surprised to find how the people of Battersea and South London, by a very large majority, took the Festival Gardens to their hearts. In Battersea, from all the signs available, there is no doubt that by the middle of the summer a huge majority were in favour of continuing. One rather expects to get letters from people who have complaints, but of all the letters on this subject which reached me, the majority were enthusiastic for going on with the Gardens. If it were not so late, I should like to quote from a few of them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) that it is not just a matter for enjoyment. There is also the good reason of finance. We have spent a lot of public money and we want to get it back. Fortunately, in this case, both reasons coincide. I would join with the Minister in paying a tribute to the Chairman and Managing Director of Festival Gardens, particularly to Major Joseph, for the prompt efforts they made to deal with complaints which actually came from people in the area.
There were three main complaints which came to me. The first was about the fireworks and the noise made. That was promptly put right be reducing the frequency of the fireworks and making the time for them a little earlier in the evening. The second was about the noise made by cars starting up when people went home, which, on inquiry, proved to be very exaggerated.
The third was about the parking of buses when the so-called "Borough Nights," with the beauty queens and so forth, were organised in the autumn, and the whole thing was put right within about 48 hours of the complaint coming forward from those living immediately around the park. I think the management deserve


credit for that, and it does show that if other complaints are made in the future it should not be difficult to meet them.
I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend and the Minister in giving approval to this Bill, but I would say that we ought to be a little cautious in making optimistic estimates about the future financial prospects. As the Minister said, it is anybody's guess, but we do not know how it will work out when there is not the rest of the Festival to assist us.
Undoubtedly, the decision of the House not to open the fun fair itself on Sundays will make the situation more difficult. I regret that myself. My own view is that if one does no harm to anybody else, one should be allowed to enjoy oneself as one pleases. I will not repeat here some of the expressions I have heard Battersea people use about the persons from more remote parts of the country who came here and laid down the law—literally laid it down—as to how we should enjoy ourselves on Sunday. Though I will not now echo those un-Parliamentary expressions of opinion, I do, nevertheless, echo the sentiments contained in them.
I would ask the Minister one further question. It is important, if we are to go on with the Gardens, that the riverside walk, in particular—which, I believe, is very much valued by Chelsea as well as Battersea—should be open in the winter months. The Gardens will be closed now for six months of the year, and we do not want the whole of the park to be completely shut up and closed to the public during these six months. I believe arrangements are being made to open the riverside walk; but I should be very gratified to hear if the Minister could tell us that in a few weeks from now it will be made possible for the public at least to walk along the river front. If he can do that, he will have my entire blessing and approval and that of most of the people of Battersea for his Bill.

12.2 a.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: It is one thing to agree to a concrete proposal like holding the Festival for one year only: it is quite another to go on with it for five years. I believe there are millions of people in the country who do not like it and tolerated it for one year because they felt there might be something in it so far as overseas

people were concerned. Therefore, I think if there has not been a breach of faith, at least there has been a going back on an assurance. So many Government spokesmen said that the Gardens would be in existence for one year only.
The point is being made of getting back this £1 million. But how? By persuading people to spend their money in these amusement enterprises. If they did not spend it here they would spend it at Southend, Brighton, Eastbourne, Lonsdale, Morecambe and Grange and all the other seaside resorts throughout the country. People living in Birmingham who take their families away each year, normally take them to a seaside resort. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that hon. Members would if they lived in Birmingham. One year they would say, "Let's go and see this thing they talk about so much in the House of Commons, which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), plugged so hard on the wireless"—and so, they do not go to Morecambe that year.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that the Tourist Association have declared that the Festival Pleasure Gardens made practically no difference to the seaside resorts?

Sir I. Fraser: They have said that, but they did not speak for Morecambe and Lonsdale—and I can tell them that they are wrong.
This Bill will take the bread out of the mouths of hotels and boarding-house keepers, amusement caterers, shopkeepers and all those who work for them—the ordinary man-in-the-street—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in Morecambe and all the beautiful towns of the Lake District. This is a London affair, mainly for Londoners. If, therefore, the Government intend to go on with it, let them give us this assurance, that if there is any profit the taxpayers will be paid back, and that if there is any loss it will be paid for by London.
What the Government are going to do is to try to make £1 million by taking the bread out of the mouths of those who have capital, municipally or privately, in all these enterprises all round the country. They want to make a profit by reducing the profits in all those other places. On the profits in those other places Income


Tax will be paid. Moreover, every hotel keeper and boarding-house keeper pays Purchase Tax on the tools of his trade—on towels, sheets, and so on. The Government are taking money away from people who pay their taxes in order to put money into this particular competitive, Government-supported amusement enterprise. I say that that is unfair. If London wants it, London ought to pay for it.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. W. Nally: One knows sufficient about the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) not to take too seriously any of his fears about Morecambe. It is preposterous that in a debate of this kind we should have mention of Purchase Tax paid by the boarding-house keepers in Morecambe on their towels.
The real truth of the matter is that over the last few years, including the last year of the war, the boarding-house keepers of Morecambe have done very well. I have stayed in Morecambe as a junior reporter; I have stayed there as a senior reporter; and I have stayed there as a feature writer. Morecambe has done very well, and there has never been so much money made in Morecambe as there has been made there in the last four and a half years, even allowing for the imagination in their Income Tax returns, by the boarding-house keepers and restaurant proprietors and the rest who are the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
What we are discussing tonight is the Festival Gardens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those two hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Members for Morecambe and Lonsdale, and Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), who are particularly affected by that "Hear, hear," will, before I finish with their respective seaside resorts, be saying exactly the same thing. Opposition to the continuance of the amusement park is based first of all upon the views of the seaside resorts. Let us take the resorts of the two hon. Members for Morecambe and Lonsdale and Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson) who are so loud in their "Hear, hear."
As to every argument that has been used about the difficulties of those living in the neighbourhood of an amusement park, I would undertake to take the two

hon. Gentlemen who have been so eloquent with their cheers in the last 90 seconds round their constituencies and show them the nuisance caused by barkers, by loud speakers, by street hawkers, by auctions at the roadside. I would undertake to take them round their constituencies and demonstrate to them there how racketeers are given a free hand that was not permitted within half a mile of the Battersea amusement park.

Mr. William Teeling: Can the hon. Gentleman name one place where there are loud speakers in my division?

Mr. Nally: Loud speakers consist of many things. There were the loud speakers the hon. Gentleman paid for during the General Election.

Mr. Teeling: I did not. By special arrangement we did not have any.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Gentleman must not give me that. I know the Labour Parliamentary agent in Brighton.
Does the hon. Gentleman not know of the gentlemen who, at Brighton railway station, sell all sorts of things to the passengers going to and from the trains, including rock off the ration? They use megaphones to advertise the wares they are selling. I repeat what I said: I will undertake to take both hon. Gentlemen round their constituencies, and show them that more noise is made there on Friday and Saturday nights than ever was made at the amusement park.
We have another factor to take into consideration. The seaside resorts have a fair and legitimate case to put up against the Measure which we are now considering, but it is a case that must be based on merit. Even Blackpool has realised this, because that seaside resort is at loggerheads about the charges for next season with a private trade association concerned with apartments and hotels. Blackpool has decided to charge lower prices than those put forward by the association. It is now deciding whether or not it will remain in the association, and the association is deciding whether or not to expel Blackpool.

Mr. Teeling: On a point of order. What has this to do with the Measure under discussion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Nally: I was showing that this shoddy opposition to the amusement park is based upon a supreme factor. I can well remember the rather subdued objections which used to come from hon. Members opposite, particularly in 1945, 1946 and 1947, when I asked some rude questions about pin-table saloon proprietors and cheap jacks, who operated at our seaside resorts, working on Service men's gratuities.
The truth of the matter is that the amusement park in London, with all the difficulties that had to be faced as was admitted by the Minister of Works, is a dignified attempt to build up something which London needs, not alone for London but for others who come to London from elsewhere. One becomes rather bored with the suggestion that London deserves special consideration over such places as Bilston, which I represent, or Manchester, where I live. Londoners, who do not like being in London, should remember that it is still our capital city, and that it has a duty to perform for the rest of the country.
To suggest that it is a shocking thing to have an amusement park in London is as ridiculous as saying that we ought not to maintain the Tower of London. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Tower of Blackpool."] I wish that as much money had been spent on the Tower of London as has been spent in times past on the Tower of Blackpool. It is a pity that so-called private enterprise, which has spent so much money since 1945 in Blackpool, has not spent as much in keeping in good repair the treasured relics of London.
This is a good and sensible Bill, but I hope we shall go further. The Thames was described by an hon. Gentleman opposite as the greatest river in the country. It is even greater than the Irwell, which has the distinction of flooding every three or four years, which makes it awkward for Manchester. The Thames is the river around which much of the life of the country revolves, yet why is it that of all the rivers of Europe flowing through capital cities it is a neglected and forgotten river in terms of music and gaiety?

Mr. Stephen McAdden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Southend is at the mouth of the Thames?

Mr. Nally: The one point to be advanced against the Thames is that at the mouth of the river is Southend, and the hon. Gentleman sits for that division. If he will accompany me on a trip down the river—

Mr. McAdden: I live there.

Mr. Nally: —I know that. I am not ill-informed on these matters.

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order! I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little ill-informed on this Bill.

Mr. Nally: My only point is that within 200 yards of our getting off the steamer at Southend I could show the hon. Gentleman more pin-table saloons of the worst type, and more bookmakers' touts than anywhere else.
It is no good the Government's supporters pretending that they welcomed the Festival. It is true that there were many mistakes, and that money was lost which ought not to have been lost, but that invariably occurred where private enterprise was fulfilling a contract for those responsible for the Pleasure Gardens. Things are better now, and I hope that the Gardens will continue, and that they will become part of the making of this great City of London. I hope that our constituents will find the Gardens, in years to come, a place where they can enjoy a drink of beer in happy circumstances, overlooking a great river.
The difference in attitude to this Bill is symbolic of the difference between the two parties. It was a Tory Member, now in the House of Lords, who wrote an article entitled "Strength through Misery," in which he decided that we were all a lot of miserable teetotallers, friendless, and liking no one. All I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer, when he replies, is this simple question. Where have the cheers come from tonight? Who was his Minister cheered by when he talked about decent and friendly arrangements for a place of jollity and gaiety in London?

Mr. J. Hudson: The teetotallers.

Mr. Nally: I want to be able to get teetotallers' drinks in decency. I want places where one can take children in decency. Let the Minister make it perfectly plain that we, on this side of


the House, are not the misery people. The position he is facing on his own back benches is that based upon the amusement park caterers, who include the pin-table saloon proprietors. It is based upon the boarding-house keepers in Blackpool and Brighton, who want to charge through the nose and are frightened of any opposition.
We give the Minister, not our unreserved, but our wholehearted support. Will he make it plain to the benches behind him, that when it comes to the decent, honest, legitimate amusements of the British people no interests from Brighton or the rest of these places will stand in the way of accomplishing this object?

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing (Weston-superMare): I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally). I should have been even more interested had he devoted the major part of his remarks to the Bill. I gathered he would only support this Bill if anybody who went to the Festival Gardens was a teetotaller. I would refer him, in that matter, to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who could possibly put him right.
I think that the hon. Member missed out one important point. This Bill is not as it has been presented or as it has been received by the Front Bench of the Opposition. This is not a Bill in connection with the Festival of Britain any longer. We have to recognise that. This activity has nothing whatsoever to do with the Festival of Britain in the future. Therefore, we have to look at the Bill as one to support the continuance of a particular form of amusement, in a particular place, for the particular purpose for which it was first designed.
It was first designed with a limited amount of money to make a limited amount of recovery or profit. Owing to mal-administration and the unfortunate circumstances of the estimates made by the Marquis of Festival, now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, these estimates were not correct. Therefore, this enterprise was involved in a very considerable loss, a loss far above that which was estimated when the original project was presented to the House.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who was at that time responsible for presenting these matters to the House, had to come before us and apologise very honestly and very openly and say he was sorry that the original estimates were completely and absolutely wrong. I want the House to consider what the position would be if the original estimates had been right and if additional expenditure to a very consider able extent had not been called for. We can see quite well that the extension called for in this Bill would not have been nearly as necessary as it is. This Bill is caused because the original estimates were wrong as to what it would cost and what the recovery might be.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the only reason why the House wants to go on with the Festival Gardens is to get the money back? That is not the view of this side of the House.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the right hon. Gentleman should do me the justice of listening to what I am saying. I said that the evidence of maladministration and bad estimating certainly entered into the case for the presentation of this Bill, because the case would not be so strong if the losses had not been so great as a result of bad estimating in the first case. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that that is sound. The case for having to continue with these Gardens and the amusement park is far stronger because in the first instance the estimate was wrongly made and the percentage of recovery on the final figure is far smaller than it would have been.

Mr. George Wigg: Do I take it that it is the view of the hon. Gentleman that, supposing at the end of this summer the accounts should be absolutely clear, the Government would not have had to come forward with this Bill?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Certainly; that is my view. If these Gardens had broken even at the end of this season I do not believe the Government would have had any justification whatsoever for coming forward with this Bill.

Mr. Wigg: Supposing that at the end of the summer we had broken even, would the Government not have come forward with this Bill?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not know what the Government's view would have been. As a back bencher of the Conservative Party I could not for one moment have supported a Bill continuing activities of this nature if, in fact, the enterprise as a whole had broken even. The only excuse I can find for the continuance of these activities is that I see some hope of recovering for the taxpayer the monies which have been lost very largely owing to the bad estimating and maladministration which was, in the first place, due to carelessness on the part of those who were then members of His Majesty's Government.
There are a great many things we do not like to have to do on this side of the House⁁

Mr. Nally: There will be a lot more yet.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: —but most of these unpleasant things consist of trying to put right the mistakes perpetrated by those who now sit on the other side of the House. I do not want to arouse party feeling. This is a matter we have to consider quite objectively. But I am a little perturbed when I find one hon. Member after another getting up from different sides of the House saying that we must, of course, go on with this Bill, that it will amuse London, and that it is popular in London. We have heard the figures from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nally: I am not interested in London.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman may not be interested in London; I am not interested in what he is interested in. If the excuse is that London has to be amused, why should London not pay for it? Why should not the London ratepayers be asked to contribute in special form to provide their citizens with amusement?
Why should I in my rural area of Somerset, hard pressed as I am in providing houses for people who work on the land, be asked to contribute by way of taxation and indirectly by the subsidisation of losses on British Railways in running cheap trips to London? Are there to be the equivalent cheap trips to Morecambe, Somerset, Ilfracombe, Leeds, Hull, and other places where they have these fun fairs and pin-tables?
Of course, if the Bill goes through the Gardens will have to be made a success. Let us be honest about it. I am not afraid that the seaside amusements remote from London will suffer. But we could not support the Bill were it not necessary to put right the mistakes made by those now in Opposition, who were responsible. First, the only reason is that we want to recover the loss incurred by them. Second, I resent having to extract money from the taxpayer to subsidise the amusement of Londoners. Third, if it is to be indirectly subsidised by advertising and the expenditure of British Railways, which will not be reciprocated in the other direction, I say that it is improper and wrong. But I am not going to oppose the Bill.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I began to wonder where I was. Of all the mean-spirited speeches about the proposal it was the worst I have heard—and I have listened to a number in the last two or three years. I welcome the Bill because I have always felt it right that the Gardens should be kept going. As one representing a constituency close to the park, and next to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I think I have a right to claim to know the feelings of Londoners about the Gardens. I can also claim to have some knowledge of their feelings as a member of the London County Council.
I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) to the support of this Bill. I have heard him make speeches which, if not intended to be opposition to the Bill, got as near to opposition as one could approach in a speech.

Mr. Brooke: Will the hon. Member please cease trying to misrepresent what I said in the London County Council? I have never opposed the Festival Gardens. I have always said that if anything of that kind was run it ought not to be run at a loss to be borne by the public purse.

Mr. Gibson: The hon. Member was responsible, with friends of his on the London County Council, for moving an amendment to a motion which supported the principles which are outlined in this Bill. That amendment proposed that nothing should be done unless football


and cricket pitches were provided in the Royal Parks, and that the continuation of the Gardens should be an experiment for one year. If that is not opposition I do not understand what the English language means.
This is a two-year experiment to find out whether continuation can be a success. I believe it can be. I do not believe it will be a success merely because Londoners go to the Gardens. According to the figures given by the Minister, nearly 2,000,000 people from outside London went there during the recent Exhibition. I am quite sure that the many provincial people who come to London every summer will be glad to have a place like this Battersea Park to go to. I think it will attract them, especially if we continue the river boat services and take them to the park by river.
The proposal to continue the Pleasure Gardens for two years as an experiment is a good one, but I feel confident that at the end of that time we shall continue it for the longer period, not because there has been a continued loss on it, but because public opinion has made clear that it is what is wanted in London. This is a Garden the like of which can only be seen abroad. Here is a Garden containing features which abroad everyone praises. It provides enjoyment not only for Londoners but for provincial people, and for many from abroad. As the Minister has said, I believe it has encouraged a greater appreciation of beauty and colour. The more we can encourage real art and beauty in our public entertainments the better it will be not only for the entertainment industry, but for our people. I am, therefore, quite satisfied that, financially, this experiment is justified.
As I have said, my constituency is close to Battersea Park. Clapham Common separates it, and Clapham Common was one of the car parks which was a "flop." But I have not had a single letter of complaint about the noise in the fun fair or the noise of people leaving the Gardens at night. I have been to the Gardens myself on several occasions and taken others; not only to enjoy what was to be enjoyed there, but deliberately to test whether there was anything to which people could object.
The only thing I found to object to was the noisy fireworks, and that was met by reducing the number of evenings on which they were discharged—I wish it could have been reduced still further—and by advancing the time of the display. Everyone around South London who might have been annoyed by the crowds and the crush thoroughly enjoyed the Gardens and want them to continue. The Battersea Borough Council have passed a resolution in favour of continuing the Gardens and the fun fair, even with the fireworks.
So far as one can judge public opinion, whether by the eight million people who paid to go in, or by the expressions of opinion through the local borough council, or the London County Council, this House would be doing the right thing in passing this Bill. I was glad to hear the Minister say he thought the flower beds ought to be improved. That means spending more money, but I am sure he is right. That was one of the features of the Gardens which, I thought, did not reach the standard attained by other attractions.
I would reinforce the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Battersea, North that the river walk should be kept open during the period when the Gardens are closed. As one who knows that walk very well indeed I am sure it would be quite wrong to deny the people of London the opportunity of using it during the period when, owing to the weather and the season, the park itself has to be closed. It could easily be set off from the rest of the buildings.
I believe that this Bill is justified, and I believe that the Festival Gardens will justify themselves in the future. I hope that the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill, and that we shall hear a little less of the rather mean-spirited suggestions and criticisms from people from other parts of the country who think they have expert knowledge about giving entertainment to their visitors.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I have little quarrel with what has been said by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), so I do not propose to follow his arguments. I wish to suggest to hon. Members opposite who have


accused us on this side of the House of being extremely friendly to the Festival Gardens now, when some of us were in opposition to them before. I say this, that if we had to build the whole of this fun fair now, and supply all the timber and steel and cement and so on in the critical position in which we are today, every hon. Member would vote against it.
We were very nearly in as bad a position two years ago and that is why I opposed the Festival Gardens at that time. If we had not built it there would be more houses now and the timber, steel and manpower that went into the building of that fun fair would have been available for other work. That is why I opposed it then, and I would oppose it again now if it were a matter of starting all over again.
But now we have it we have to forget all that and we have to try to make some money to repay the taxpayers. I agree that it keeps up our morale and that it is a good thing for us to have a bit of fun. The Minister said it is essentially a family affair, which is what we want to encourage. I must confess that the one time I took my family was the occasion when all the lights went out, and my family were not best pleased about it. Nevertheless, it is a joy which children and parents can share together.
I am not at all optimistic about what is going to happen. The Minister said that he estimated to make £365,000 next year. I think he divided last year's profit by half, but I hope that he has remembered that last year it was a novelty, Everyone had the so-called Festival spirit. There were large sums spent on advertisement and many people came to see the South Bank and went on to the Festival Gardens. He may argue on the other side of the balance sheet that the Festival Gardens have now built up some good will, that people will come back, that the carnival spirit has come to stay and that people are switchback-minded, but I think he must go very carefully in these estimates.
He estimated, I think, that repairs would cost only £100,000; but all these switchbacks and the other things that we have enjoyed ourselves were made for one year only. We cannot take risks with lives: they must be absolutely secure and safe. I hope that he is not going to put a little bit of paint on and patch them up and say, "I only spent

£100,000 and everything will be all right." I hope if he is to put in estimates on paper he will be a little more conservative than he has appeared to be tonight.
The other thing I do not like about the Bill is that it must keep going till 1953. Why does my right hon. Friend not give himself the chance of stopping it in 1952 if a loss is made? I know that he is being forced to carry this project on and I know he does not want to run a fun fair. He would much rather do it by private enterprise. Why, then, cannot he sell the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, to a private firm such as Butlins, or anyone who runs a similar show?
In that way my right hon. Friend would have a certain profit without any risk of losing money. It would be run by private enterprise and, more important than that, he would have the beastly thing off his mind. It is not right that a Minister of Works, with plenty of very important tasks for the next few years, should be worried by running a fun fair. I am sure that there are difficulties, but I hope that when a reply is made to this debate very good reasons will be given why private enterprise cannot undertake this form of amusement or else the Minister will say he will consider it.
I would say to those representing seaside resorts that there is no reason why a fun fair in London should do them any harm, any more than a football match in Leeds should spoil football attendances in Margate, as people become more football-minded and football is thus helped in the seaside towns. In the same way people may become more fun fair-minded and so hon. Members representing seaside resorts will see a fun fair in London will benefit them in the long run.

Mr. Eccles: On my hon. Friend's point about selling it to private enterprise, the first thing is that we have to have L.C.C. approval and the agreements are such that we could not do it without carrying them with us. The second point, is that you do not get very much money on a thing when there is so much debt and you have yet to prove that you can make a profit in ordinary circumstances. I suggest to my hon. Friend that if we are successful in normal seasons we may then do what he wants on very much better terms.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The private conference that has just taken place between the Minister and some of his hon. Friends behind him does not dispose of the heartfelt expression of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams), "If only the Minister would consider letting private enterprise rip in this matter he would get the beastly thing off his mind." There, we have a full confession of what the Tory Party think—

Mr. G. Williams: It was just a manner of speaking, that was all.

Mr. Hudson: "Beastly thing off his mind." Beastly thing off the Tory mind.
The Tories spent all the vituperation they could during the General Election in running this venture—this beastly thing—down, and they used the sort of arguments we have just listened to about how many houses could have been built with the materials used for this venture had it not been proceeded with. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if the fun fair is to be proceeded with—and he will not challenge the proposal on a Division tonight—there will not be expended upon it money which could otherwise be used for various constructive purposes?
For example, the beastly thing will have to be painted. There will be an expenditure of material upon it that could go to housing. A very considerable expenditure of material will be made upon it. There will actually be some capital expenditure upon it. It will be necessary, said the Minister, if only to keep up the general standard of decorations in the Gardens. This is a bit of a let-down—is it not?—after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day about a circular sent to all Government Departments to consider most carefully how they could save on capital expenditure? But, of course, the Chancellor is away in Rome, and when the cat is away the mice will play, and we have the mice playing tonight with this idea of considerable capital expenditure in order to make this thing—this beastly thing—go in the effective way it will have to go if these millions that have been expended are to be made up.
The Tory Party have again tonight, as in almost every debate in this new Parliament, exposed their insincerity in the

attacks they made upon this venture in the past. If the Minister is right in what he said about the wonderful good this beastly thing could do by keeping all the family together by providing enjoyment of the sort they all really like, if he is right in saying all this good can be done on weekdays, I cannot understand what harm would be done by letting the family have this enjoyment on Sundays, too.
Not all people go to church on Sundays; nor do they all go to chapel. There is only a small percentage of the population of London—I am sorry to say, but it is a fact—engaged in the observance of religious rites, but others are engaged a great deal more in finding relief from the tedious work of the week; and they are glad on Sundays to get a change in their lives.
The more prosperous people get out of London on a Sunday. The people with cars get away out of London. The golf courses around London are crowded with all sorts of people on Sundays, enjoying themselves at their game. Let the people enjoy themselves. I submit that after the admissions made by the Minister of Works tonight there was never any case for the restrictions, which have been placed on the innocent amusements in the Festival Gardens for the people of London.
The Festival Gardens have proved a tremendous success, and I believe that that will be the case in future years as well. It is only the Tories who have lost their capacity for apprising things properly. I make an honourable exception of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson), who courageously faced up to the problem. The party opposite, however, have followed the policy of cribbing and confining the people of London in their search for legitimate and reasonable entertainment and change, especially at the week-ends.
The Festival Gardens have done very well for London. Last year they brought large crowds to the city. My wife and I live a very quiet life in this city, but we had more relatives last year than in any other year. They had to visit the Festival Gardens, and it was a great delight to all of them that there was such a place where they could enjoy themselves. I know what is true of our house is true of every family in London. The


hotels and transport in London have done well as a result. Everybody was cheerful, including even the Tory Party, as a result of the fun that was created by these Gardens.
I am glad to know, too, that the crowds at the Gardens were well conducted. As a teetotaller I welcome that. When the design of the Gardens was being made, I warned my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that if he let in the purveyors of drink they would ruin the Gardens. I know that he has been careful, and there have been hardly any complaints about drunkenness in the Gardens. I am very glad that the crowds at the Gardens have conducted themselves so admirably, and they have contributed to real temperance in this great metropolis. As a teetotaller I am very glad to say this, and to take the broad view about the future of the scheme.
I support the Bill. I am glad to be present to witness the lesson that the Minister of Works has taught the Tories so effectively about the necessity to go on with such a good scheme, which was first introduced by the Labour Government. I hope that next year the Gardens will have even greater success, as I am sure they will.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: Twice tonight the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) has sought to persuade the House that we on this side have always been against the conception of the Festival Gardens. That is entirely inaccurate, because we did not oppose the Bill for the Festival Gardens or the Festival of Britain. The vote last summer, to which reference was made by the hon. Member, came about in entirely different circumstances.
When the question first came before the House, we were told that the job could be done for £570,000. So lax was the supervision of the then Lord President of the Council that the bill came to £2,500,000, and we thought it right then to register a most emphatic protest at such reckless waste of public money. That is what the vote was about. It was not a condemnation of the whole idea of the Festival Gardens. We had every right to be critical. So much money was being wasted, and the estimate was exceeded many times over.
I am sorry the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has left. He was most generous in his invitations to all of us. It was quite unnecessary for him to offer to take me around Blackpool, because I know the city far better than he will ever know it. I would certainly not make the mistake of showing him where the loudspeakers are, because we have powers to control noise, and we use them where a nuisance is committed. The only thing that he said that was right was his remark that the boarding-house keepers are to lower their prices next season. Good luck to them.
It is remarkable how many people, when talking about amusements, refer to Blackpool. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) was brought up in the same school of thought as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). Like him, she was wrong. She held Blackpool up as a fine example of municipal enterprise. But Blackpool, and its places of entertainment, were built by private enterprise, through the courage and enterprise of private citizens. Even when the Socialist Party go to Blackpool for their conference they use a fine big hall, built by private enterprise.
The difference there is that the city fathers have taken it as their job to create the conditions in which the people of the city can earn a fair living, and not to compete with them. That is why I feel a certain amount of anxiety about this Bill. The Minister was quite right when he said that the Conservative Party, if they were starting afresh, would not put money into amusement parks. That is a true and proper function of private enterprise. Therefore, I cannot feel very happy that we are carrying on.
To my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson), I would say that we are not worried about competition. The festival and the fun fair made no difference to us because our private enterprise fun fairs and pleasure beach were filled to overflowing, and we could provide a better show than any in Battersea Park. Nor do we find it necessary to charge admission for every person. What happens when the job is done by private enterprise? Something those on the other side of the House do not like. Men get their earnings, profits are made, from which substantial contributions to the local exchequer by way


of rates, and to the national exchequer by way of taxation, are made. That is the proper way to do it. I am not really happy about the Government itself competing in this field, though many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that they are happy about it.
I sympathise with the Minister of Works in having been stuck with this, and forced to make up his mind at short notice before he had an opportunity of rejecting the estimates and figures given to him. We have seen how bad and how wrong these figures were in the past. It is a tragedy that the Minister has been put in a position in which, in the course of a few days, he has had to accept whatever figures there were and say, "Yes," or, "No," right away. So the Minister is to chase money which, apparently, has been lost and is to compete with the citizens of the country rather than help them, as I believe a good Conservative should do.
I hope that now the Minister has made up his mind to do this he will succeed and will get the money back. I think that the cost of doing this, however, may be far greater than my right hon. Friend has been led to believe. I remember going around Battersea Park just before the show was opened, and there I saw that the majority of the buildings put up were temporary buildings, some of them being partially tented accommodation. They were built with the idea that the fun fair was to last for one year and one year only. I believe one will put a strain on the equipment there if one expects it to last and work for six years. It will need a tremendous amount of expenditure on its upkeep and renovations.

Mr. Carson: My hon. Friend is making a very pessimistic speech. Does he or does he not believe that the Pleasure Gardens are worth going on with? I do not understand whether he wants to go on with it, or to scrap it.

Mr. Robinson: I have not said that. I said that I regret that we are put in a position of having to chase money lost in the past through over-optimism and extravagance of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
This country would have been far better off today if the Lord President of the Council and some of his supporters had

been pessimistic two years ago. I remember that two years ago it was said the Festival Gardens would attract many thousands of foreign visitors. It has not done that. It is abundantly clear that this fun fair is something to give happiness to the people, but it could have been done in other ways. As it is to be a London show, it is regrettable the major portion of that cost has to fall on the national Exchequer rather than on the L.C.C.
We do not like what is being done, but we shall give the Government full support. We hope they will get back this money, but I trust that on the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister will consider introducing an Amendment which will ensure that we shall break even at the end of each year, or wind up the Gardens when we have got back the money.

1.9 a.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I understand that the Labour Party, having gone to one of the health resorts on the Yorkshire coast last year, is contemplating next year going to one of the resorts on the Lancashire coast. If the matter is not finally settled, this evening's debate may provide the opportunity for making an early return visit to Margate and to going on the fun fair, which is one of the best under private enterprise.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson), says the Conservative Party has never been against the Pleasure Gardens. Strictly speaking, I suppose that is true if one looks at the votes cast by the Tory Party. But I remember that at the time when the Gardens were under construction there was a steady barrage of sniping from their side of the House. The party opposite at that time won every vote that was to be won by criticising the Gardens.
We have again heard the criticism tonight, from an hon. Member who has now left, of what a large number of houses could have been built if we did not have these Pleasure Gardens and the Festival. Everybody on the waiting list for a house has been tempted to think that it is because of the Festival that they are still living in overcrowded conditions. Take the cost at £2 millions and translate it into houses at £1,500 per house. That works out at 1,300 houses, or two houses per constituency. In my constituency


there are four local authorities building houses, so that there there would have been half a house per authority if this had not been done. It seems to me that the argument there is a little wrong.
I am delighted to welcome this Bill. When I was in Denmark in 1938 I saw the Tivoli Gardens, and ever since I have longed for there to be something comparable in this country. As soon as I saw the proposal for these pleasure gardens on paper it seemed to me that my hopes were going to be fulfilled, and they have been more than fulfilled. I think it is wise in this Bill to provide for a maximum continuance of five years, but I cannot conceal my hope—a very strong hope—that at the end of that time there will be another Bill to make this permanent.
After all, the Danes, who, I suppose, are in many ways more like us than any other people in the world, like to have their Tivoli Gardens permanently, and I do not see why we should not have the Battersea Park Pleasure Gardens permanently. There is no reason why this could not be made a profitable and permanent enterprise because if the most pessimistic figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to us of a profit of £365,000 per year is maintained, and even if we assume that every such garden will always be as extravagantly established as this one, this garden is earning 18 per cent. of the capital cost, and that is pretty good.
Therefore, I see no reason why there should not be another pleasure garden in Victoria Park in the East End. I see no reason why there should not be another park in the great conurbation which surrounds Birmingham.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the proposals before us.

Sir R. Acland: I was making a point vis à vis those hon. Members who have complained that London is getting all the advantage out of these Pleasure Gardens upon which the whole country is spending its money, by saying that I hoped London was only establishing something which other parts of the country may have in the future. If it should happen that one of the other great conurbations should come forward with a similar project, I hope that this House will let it be known that national money

can be risked to establish gardens like this in other places, as it has been risked in London.
I was delighted to hear the Minister mention the flowers, because I agree with him that an improvement could be made. To get good flower beds, it would be a good thing to go to the people who have already made a great success of laying out public flower beds. I do not know whether he will agree with me. Of all the public places I have seen, one must give 100 per cent. marks for layout of flower beds—it is a rather similar garden, though on a smaller scale—to the Bristol Zoo. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman knows it, and I hope that between now and next summer he will find out who is responsible for those flower beds and ask him to come up and give advice.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take notice of the tip that has been given to him. The head gardener to the L.C.C. came from the county borough of Southend and is an even better authority on the laying out of gardens; I hope he will take his advice as well.
I hope that it will not be thought impertinent to deal with the financial aspect of this situation, which so far has been very lightly skated over. I am amazed that men who have had considerable experience in running businesses should be prepared to enter enthusiastically into the idea of extending the life of these Gardens for five years on the scanty information provided.
The right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will possibly remember that some months ago I asked if it were possible for monthly figures to be given, showing income and expenditure for the Pleasure Gardens. He said that it would be quite impossible, but that the full accounts of the Company would be published at the end of the season. Not a single member of this House has had the opportunity of studying the published and audited accounts of the Company, because, so far as I know, they have not been published and it is doubtful whether they have been audited. But Members on both sides have been prepared to support wholeheartedly our going on with the venture. That is rather remarkable.
We have, it is true, been told that there is an operating profit of £805,000, but I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen on either side have bothered to work out exactly how this was arrived at. It is true that we have had just over 8 million visitors in Festival Year, but they have been charged 2s. a head to go in. So that the profit made is almost exactly equal to the exorbitant admission charged, as compared with any other amusement park in the country; and it is doubtful whether it is possible to sustain that figure in succeeding years.
This is a relevant factor, because I am sure the Minister does not really believe that there is going to be anything like the same number attending next year and the year after. Indeed, it was suggested that there would not be more than half the number. That means the admission charges will be halved and that the money taken on the various amusements will be considerably reduced. It seems exceedingly optimistic to assume that the venture is going to show the same financial advantage in coming years.

Mr. Eccles: I think the hon. Gentleman has really got it wrong. If the attendances are halved, then over two years—and the hon. Baronet was also mistaken—the profit would be £365,000, that is more than £180,000 a year.

Mr. McAdden: I do not accuse the Minister of misleading the House, but some hon. Members on the other side have been optimistic. Because we are said to have made £180,000 a year, without figures to prove it, they imply that we are likely to make a corresponding profit in subsequent years even though the attendance is reduced. I am entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what provision has been made—and the figures on which the operating profit has been based—for the advertising that went on during Festival Year. Has Festival Gardens, Limited, been debited with the whole of the advertising for the Gardens; has consideration been given to the considerable benefit derived from free publicity on Press and radio?
The question of publicity by Press and radio is something which ought to be considered, because although one might expect to receive it on a lavish scale during the Festival Year, one could not expect

it to continue during succeeding years. On the financial side, there is the question of whether in fact Festival Gardens, Limited, is going to be treated differently from other commercial undertakings. We have had the assurance from the Minister that there is going to be a fair balance between them. But can we be told whether Festival Gardens, Limited, is paying any interest on outstanding debts?

Mr. Eccles: Yes.

Mr. McAdden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will agree that it is an important point. No figure has been given of what maintenance is to cost. I think we ought to recognise that it is likely to be heavy. Hon. Members who have taken the trouble to go to the Gardens where, incidentally, there was more rock sold off points than there was in Southend or Brighton—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."]—I am not in the habit of being interrupted by hon. Members who say it is not true although the thing is common knowledge. Let the hon. Member ask the former Minister of Food about the matter, and he will find that what I said was true.
Those who know something about the Festival Gardens know that in many places the paving surface was laid on earth without any other foundation. Because that surface was laid directly on earth water will accumulate beneath it, and when that water freezes it is likely to crack the paving surface.

Mr. Stokes: To what parts is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. McAdden: The amusement park and fun fair, and quite a number of paths around, are laid on earth. It is worth examination. The criticism directed against anyone who suggests that this Measure is not 100 per cent. worthy of support has been that the critic is obviously a wet blanket anxious to deprive people of their amusement. I am certainly not anxious to do that. I hope that the people will have their amusement. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) was enthusiastic over the Vauxhall beer garden and other attractions of the fun fair.

Mr. J. Hudson: I am sure the hon. Member will acquit me of expressing enthusiasm over the beer garden. I expressed enthusiasm about the Gardens as


a whole, which I thought did not have the effect of creating the intemperance which many people feared.

Mr. McAdden: I am sure that the hon. Member will not object to my making a passing reference to the fact that the Vauxhall beer garden was part of the Gardens. It is suggested that the fun fair is something which London ought to have and has always wanted. Is it assumed that the people connected with the entertainment business are fools, and that the only people who know where fun fairs ought to be are politicians? Such a suggestion would strain the credulity.
It will be found that fun fairs are distributed near centres of population but not actually in those centres. The arguments which have been advanced in favour of this Bill might be applied in principle to other centres, and although there may be some division on the benches opposite, it seems to be the opinion of hon. Members on them that Government-sponsored entertainment business ought to be started in provincial centres as well. Surely such a venture as the one we are discussing has been catered for for years, by travelling showmen who are surely worthy of support. It is not at all the case that London never had a fun fair until the Festival project was started, and hon. Members who make such a fantastic suggestion do not know as much about London as they pretend to know.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a reply to the financial points which have been put to him. I hope that he will give an undertaking that when the accounts are published and audited, and if, in fact, they do not bear out the optimistic picture put before us this evening, those facts will be made known so that we can, if necessary, take a revised opinion. I hope he will also bear in mind, in coming to any conclusion, that the Festival Gardens have lost money upon the operation of the fun fair itself; and that the only money which has been made has been made out of the charge for admission.

Mr. Stokes: That is entirely untrue.

Mr. McAdden: It is a simple arithmetical calculation. If 8 million people are charged 2s. a head a sum of £8,000 is made, which is roughly what has been made. If the admission charge was done away with no money would be made. I

hope that will be borne in mind in the future operations of Festival Gardens Ltd.

1.26 a.m.

Mr. George Wigg: It seems to me that the broad division in the House tonight is between those who say and believe that this will be a good thing, and those who believe in private enterprise at any cost, regardless of the public The Government came here tonight—the Minister of Works certainly did—with good intentions. On this occasion, per-hops the first occasion I have heard him do so in this House, the Minister put the public good before his belief in private enterprise. That is a very satisfactory step forward from his point of view, and I congratulate him on it.

Mr. Nally: He has done it before.

Mr. Wigg: Having said that, I would turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). He told us tonight for the first time why the Members of the Conservative Party have gone out of their way to oppose the Festival of Britain and the Festival Gardens. I do not think he knew what he was saying—I say that with respect—but he made the point that on 25th October people in this country had shown. I will not say conclusively, that after all the Festival of Britain had not produced the political result for which he suggested that we on this side of the House were hoping. When that is said it really gives the whole show away, because the Conservative Party were opposing the Festival of Britain and the Festival Gardens, not on their merits, but because they thought that some political advantage would accrue to us.

Mr. H. Brooke: What I said was that on 25th October the people of this country showed clearly that they could not stand in office any longer a Government which squandered public money as it has been squandered on these Festival Gardens.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that. I took down what he did say, and he did not say that. He made it quite clear that the Festival spirit had not saved us on 25th October. That is what he meant and that is what he said. What he had in mind was the idea that we had been planning the Festival of Britain and the Festival Gardens


presumably to coincide with the General Election on 25th October—[Interruption.]—I wish the hon. Gentleman would not interrupt, or if he does, that he would be intelligible. After all, that was the same kind of view that was expressed from the seaside resorts.
I do not want to run down places like Blackpool, although I personally go there with a shudder. But equally, I think that Blackpool should not run down the Festival Gardens. It cannot be denied that the Festival Gardens have given pleasure not only to Londoners. Obviously it is impossible for anyone to analyse the figures and break them up between Londoners and provincials and foreigners. But there were certainly a great number of foreigners who went there. I am also quite sure that many of my constituents came to London, and a considerable number of people came from the Midlands to London to enjoy the Festival Gardens.
I have always been a great supporter of the Dudley Zoo, although it is run by private enterprise. I think that a chap who works an extra shift and takes his missus and the kids to the Dudley Zoo on a Bank Holiday is doing a good job. It is a good job for the country because he works that much harder. I would therefore have thought that hon. Members opposite would have supported that point of view: they always say they believe in incentives. If there is a legitimate outlet which does no harm to anybody, then obviously it is in the country's interest that it should be utilised.
Surely hon. Members who represent seaside resorts are intensely parochial if they keep trying to put the anti-London point of view, I am not a Londoner. My home is in the Potteries and my constituency is in the Midlands. I am only a Londoner in the periods when I happen to be in London to attend the House; but I think London and, indeed, the whole country and the whole world enjoys the advantage if a great Metropolis like London becomes a little brighter, gayer and more enjoyable. After all, one cannot just measure these things from the point of view of the balance-sheet figures.
We had a very revealing admission from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing). I asked him, if we had broken even, whether he

would have supported the Bill. Obviously he would not have supported it and we would have given his own Government a rough time if they had come forward with the Bill if we had broken square. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hampstead put that point of view himself. He said that he was only supporting the Bill because it gave us a chance to get our money back—as if one could measure the pleasure and, indeed, the economic advantage which accrues from having places like Battersea Park Fun Fair. I am sure that Dudley Zoo plays a very important part in stepping up production in the Midlands.
I wish I could splash some paint around in the Midlands and clean up the mess left to us. I wish the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson) could put into a balance-sheet just what Blackpool contributes to the wealth of England. Just what contribution have Blackpool or Southend, Bournemouth or Brighton made to our production over the last century and a half? They are the places to which people retired after creating the mess in which other people have to live elsewhere. The place I live in is where we work and where the wealth of Britain has been created. The people in Blackpool may satisfy a need—I do not deny it—but they are not producers in the way we are producers.
The policy of the Government stepping in when private enterprise cannot do it in order to brighten the lives of our people and make them a little less drab is one, I should have thought, which would have been part of any intelligent policy for creating incentives. The Dudley Zoo and the Festival Gardens have their part to play. I remember during the war that when the Coalition Government stopped horse-racing it had a very bad effect on the morale of chaps in the Army. Horse racing, football—all the leisure time activities—give people something to which to look forward, and something on which to spend their odd shillings, and are therefore desirable.
I believe the Minister understands my point, and will not merely hurry to make up the £1 million we have lost and then hand the venture over to the enemy, to the wicked uncles on the back benches behind him. If he is wise he will make sure the Gardens are put on a sound economic basis—that has got to be done, anyway—and then not hand the profit to


the Treasury but spend it on developing the Gardens—as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) unwittingly suggested—as a successful, continuing attraction which will be a pleasure that will be an incentive to our people to work up production to that desired extra 10 per cent.
I have already made it pretty clear, I think, that I support this Bill, but there is one other comment I want to make, arising out of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead, who asked about the provision of sports pitches for the youngsters. This is a serious business, that young people should have somewhere to play. This problem is likely to get worse rather than better.
Later today we shall be discussing the Home Guard Bill. The Home Guard is to be established without drill halls and without any accommodation at all, and so there is bound to be pre-emption on open spaces in our great centres of population for the use of the Home Guard. To meet such demands and to provide spaces where the youngsters can play we must get additional spaces in the centre of London. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead asked the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate whether something was to be done to make the Royal Parks available for the youngsters, and I support him, as I hope he will support me when I make claims for the Home Guard.
I think the Bill is wise, and I hope the Minister will feel so sustained by the support he will get from these benches—and it will be unquestioning support—that he can stand up against the rebels on the back benches behind him. If he comes back next year or the year after for additional powers, so far as we are concerned, we shall give them him.

1.38 a.m.

Mr. William Teeling: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said that hon. Members representing seaside resorts do not know what they are doing exactly, and has suggested that neither they nor their constituencies are doing any productive work; he has also said that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are not interested in the public welfare because they do not want too anxiously to support the Festival Gardens.
As regards Brighton, the only constituency I can speak for, I remember that, at the end of the war the late Mr. Bevin, who was then Minister of Labour, said that the war had left people so tired that one of the first things they wanted was two or three weeks' holiday, preferably at the seaside. The hon. Gentleman will also remember that during the war such seaside constituencies as Brighton were the places to which the troops went to pull themselves together, either just before going abroad or when they came back home to rest. We were then considered to be doing a useful work for the country. It may not have been much. but at least it was something.
During this Festival Year we, in Brighton, have been asked to do our level best to raise dollars by encouraging people from abroad to visit us. I think I am right in saying that Brighton, of all the Festival towns, is the only one that has paid its way, with its Festival Exhibition, and it has made a profit, too. During the seven years that I have represented the borough I have naturally studied the entertainment business, and that is why I am interested in the subject tonight. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) that I support the Bill for one reason only, and that is because of saving the taxpayer. I believe the taxpayers have got to be saved as much as possible, and it is because of the extravagence of the last Government that we are in the financial mess we are in today, and this deficit, if possible, should be made good.
I am sure that the people in the town I represent would wish me to support this Bill because of those facts, although the Bill is going to hurt them. The people who have been laughed at so much tonight by hon. Members opposite, the lodging house keepers and hotel proprietors in the seaside towns, are all Conservative at heart, and are prepared to make whatever sacrifices are necessary in order that this country can be got out of its financial mess. That is why they would support this Bill even though it hurts them to do so.
I should like to protest against the very flippant way in which so many speakers from the other side of the House, particularly in the early part of the debate, treated this question. Perhaps because it


is getting late now, that flippancy has not been so apparent in the last hour or so. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has told us that this scheme for the Festival Gardens is a gamble. I have this suggestion to make to him. In view of the fact that it is against all the principles of our party to subsidise enterprises such as this with Government money, I would suggest that as soon as these Festival Gardens pay their way he should get rid of them. That would be the fairest course to follow.
There are, after all, other entertainment people who are carrying out this business most successfully in London. For instance, there is the Bertram Mills circus and the Tom Arnold circus in the winter months. If they had thought it was necessary to have more than one circus in the year, they would have gone into the Festival earlier. When they were asked they decided to refuse, because they did not think it was warranted. The Government should remember that if they remain in competition with these people in the entertainment business, they will be losing taxation. I believe I am right in saying that in the last five years the Bertram Mills circus has contributed nearly £1 million in taxation. This competition may decrease that sum.
I have been told by various people that Brighton is losing by the Festival Gardens. I believe that that is so. From what people tell me, I know that many amusement proprietors at Brighton felt they would lose money at Brighton last summer. And so they took stalls and side shows in the Festival Gardens as a sort of hedge, and though they made a profit in the Festival Gardens they lost money on their businesses in Brighton. That Brighton suffers from the Festival Gardens must be apparent when we remember that over 8 million people visited the Gardens last summer. We know that money is scarcer than it was and that people are not spending as much as they did. If they went to the Festival Gardens, they certainly cannot afford to go to Brighton as well. They are unlikely to have increased their amusements. They must have cut down on Brighton to go to Battersea.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet did not think that people would forgo spending a day in Brighton

just because they went for a day to the Festival Gardens. But he must remember that the vast number of people who visit Brighton do not go for a week at a time. They cannot afford such a thing. Most of the people who go down are day trippers. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but Brighton visitors are not as rich as they are; they can only afford to go down for the day.

Mr. Garner Evans: Whereas it costs only 2s. to go to the Festival Gardens, a cheap day ticket to Brighton costs 8s.

Mr. Teeling: That is exactly my point. People went to the Gardens and not to Brighton, and as a result the Government were losing on the nationalised railways.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing) complaining about the excursions run all over the country.

Mr. Teeling: And then presumably coming down to Brighton on Sundays when the Gardens are closed. On that basis it may work.
The Minister said that there would be no unfair competition. May I ask him two questions? I well remember during last year we raised the point about the quite considerable amount of dollars and foreign currency spent on machines for the Festival Gardens which we were unable to obtain for ordinary fun fairs in other parts of the country. Presumably these machines will need spares and renewals. Are we to spend further dollars and foreign currency over the next two or three years to obtain any such renewals?
I understand that people connected with circuses and fun fairs who come into the suburbs of London complain that at Battersea great use has been made of wire walkers and other attractions, that are normally to be seen in circuses, but at Battersea they are free and are used to attract people to the fair. Will this form of competition be stopped? If we in Brighton and the other seaside resorts should feel, whether it is true or not, that we are sacrificing something by supporting the Government to go on with the Festival Gardens, will they, in return, try and help us next summer, when it


may be possible we shall suffer from further competition, and get us cheaper fares from London? And special excursion ticket rates, the same as those used for visitors coming to London to the fair?

1.49 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): My right hon. Friend wishes me to express his gratitude to the House as a whole for the friendly way in which this Bill has been received. That does not mean, of course, that on both sides of the House hon. Members do not still retain the views they have expressed on previous occasions. In a number of speeches from both sides we have heard echoes of controversies long past but, taken as a whole, nearly all those who have spoken tonight have viewed the matter as it is today and have understood that the Government found themselves confronted with a situation for which they were not responsible and have tried to deal with the matter, not from any doctrinaire point of view, but from the point of view of making the best of a job which at one time was a bad job. although undoubtedly there has been considerable improvement in the last few months.
The time is so late that I hope I shall be absolved from having to reply to all the points that have been made. If any hon. Member wants to emphasise again the point he has made, I hope he will write to my right hon. Friend or to myself and we will certainly give him an answer. I think I shall be meeting the convenience of as much of the House as remains—because a number of hon. Members who have spoken have followed in the footsteps of Pontius Pilate, who asked what the truth was and would not stay for an answer—if I confine myself to dealing with what are, I think, the three or four most outstanding matters raised.
I will begin by repeating the three arguments in favour of continuing the Festival Gardens. There is, first, the national question of finance. My right hon. Friend, made it plain that a very large sum of money has been spent on capital expenditure, that the return this year was reasonably satisfactory, and that if we can obtain any fairly good return on that capital expenditure it will be possible for the Government and the L.C.C. to obtain a repayment of the greater part of the capital expended. It is the intention that

there shall be a very close check upon any further capital expenditure.
The second point is that, so far as London is concerned, the Government take the view that the L.C.C. are justified in desiring that there should be continued for a time an entertainment which was extremely popular and which obtained the support of a very large number of Londoners. It is not necessary for me to discuss whether it is desirable for that to be provided by the Government or by private enterprise. The fact remains that we have inherited something for which we had no responsibility and we are trying to make the best of it, and we hope to make a very good best of it.
Thirdly, it is very important for us at present to encourage tourism, to give entertainment to foreigners who come here, and to give to those who want to come on holiday the opportunity of enjoying themselves in this country in a way that previously they were only able to do elsewhere. Let me answer points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson). In point of fact, this year has been a record year for tourist expenditure in this country. Although 1950 was the best year for this country up to that time, it is estimated that this year foreign visitors' expenditure will be 15 per cent. more than last year.
I want now to deal with several points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). He has spoken on this subject on several occasions, and I did rather resent the criticisms that were made by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite of his speech. He was asked to be a director of the company that was responsible for the Festival Gardens, and long before any of the unhappy events which occurred and with which this House is now only too familiar, he refused to become a director of it. Now we know that he showed very great foresight. Tonight he has asked certain questions about provision for sport in Battersea Park, and the same point was also raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
The Festival Pleasure Gardens have not, in fact, deprived London of any games pitches. Before the war there were 14 games pitches in the whole of Battersea Park, but most of them were lost


to allotments early in the war. Almost all of the 37 acres at present occupied by the Pleasure Gardens had previously been taken over as allotments or were ordinary park land on which no games were played. The Ministry of Works has officially informed the London County Council that it intends to provide in the Royal Parks at least as many games pitches as have been lost by the provision of the Festival Gardens at Battersea.
Under this plan there will be 38 new football pitches, 18 new cricket pitches, three new rugby pitches and one new hockey pitch. This will be done in order to make certain that the younger generation who want to play healthy and active games shall not suffer from the fact that part of Battersea Park has been used for these Pleasure Gardens.

Mr. H. Brooke: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House if the figures he has quoted apply to additional pitches being provided in Richmond Park and at Hampton Court, because those will not be very much use to the London children I am thinking about.

Mr. Molson: It really is quite impossible to deal with each one of these areas and treat it as a locality. It is surely necessary in a case of this kind to treat London as a whole. The transport system of London is now such that if one part of London is used for the purpose of giving enjoyment to the citizens of London, it is inevitable that the alternative accommodation for athletics should be a certain distance away. Surely it is one of the advantages of a modern transport system that it is no longer necessary to have all these amenities on one's doorstep.

Mr. Wigg: Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain his reference to the foresight of the hon. Member for Hampstead in refusing a directorship. I have been in the Chamber for most of the debate and this is the first time I have heard this point raised. When he raised it I thought he looked at me as though I had innuendoes about his refusing the directorship. I did not even know about it.

Mr. Molson: I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman would have refreshed his memory of the two

debates that took place on this subject before. There have been a number of points raised from the other side of the House in which reference was made to speeches which took place in previous debates, and he would have had the information to which I have just referred had he taken the trouble to read the previous debates.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Gentleman does himself less than justice. I doubt whether there are 20 members of the present House who know that the offer was made to the hon. Gentleman to serve on the board of directors associated with this venture. It is quite unfair to suggest that people should refresh their memories. I was sitting with two distinguished Members with much longer service here than I, and both were completely unaware of the fact.

Mr. Molson: I am extremely sorry if I supposed that hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they speak with a certain amount of bitterness in this matter, had informed themselves of what happened in the past. I was intending to make a conciliatory speech, but something said about my hon. Friend was not entirely justified, and I thought it proper therefore to make some reference to his previous record in this matter.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) asked what would be the expenditure in material and manpower to ensure that the equipment of the Festival Gardens was satisfactory for the coming year.

Mr. Stokes: I asked that, too.

Mr. Molson: When I give the reply to my hon. Friend I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to overhear it. It is estimated that the requirement in 1952 will be 13 tons of steel, and 15 tons in 1953; softwood, 10 standards in 1952 and 5 standards in 1953. Although, of course, it is only an estimate to which we cannot possibly be tied, it is thought that it will involve about 140 men-years. That seems to be a reasonably modest requirement, and if it is going to enable this large capital expenditure to become remunerative, then it will be agreed that it is a reasonable additional expenditure.

Captain Waterhouse: Is that just on the buildings? Surely the running of the whole Festival Gardens will take infinitely more manpower and woman-power than that?

Mr. Molson: Indeed, it will; I thought my hon. and gallant Friend was referring to the additional capital expenditure that would be required.
I am glad to take this opportunity of indicating that, in the profit which is estimated for next year, it is intended to open the Gardens only from 2.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. and, by having only one shift working, it is expected greatly to reduce the running cost of the Gardens.
In reply to one of my hon. Friends, let me say that the Company and the Government recognise that when the novelty has worn off and when it is no longer a festival year, nothing like the same number of people will be attending. In reckoning that all being well it will be possible to show a substantial profit, we are taking into account that we cannot expect more than about half the number of people who attended last year.
The hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) referred to the importance of the river-front walk being again free for ordinary pedestrians. My right hon. Friend is engaged at present in arranging with the Company that during the time that the Gardens are not open the river-front walk will again be open and available for the residents of London as in the past.
My right hon. Friend is anxious to consult in every way possible the convenience of the residents of Chelsea and Battersea. Complaints have been made regarding disturbance of the amenities of those two areas. One of those complaints was concerned with the matter of the riverside walk. I think that the hon. Member for Clapham referred to one of the most important complaints. That was the continuance of the fireworks until very late at night in the middle of the summer. Discussions are taking place with those immediately interested to ensure, if possible, that the fireworks do not cause disturbance to the neighbouring residents.
The bandstand in the middle of the park, which was requisitioned for the purpose of the Pleasure Gardens during the past year, is being set free. That is of some considerable importance,

not only because of the bandstand but because games have been played in the immediate vicinity. In that, and in other ways, it is hoped to meet the very small number of concrete grievances which have been made during the last summer by the residents of Chelsea and of Battersea, and we hope that, during the coming summer, they will have fewer complaints to make than they had last summer.
Several hon. Members opposite have raised the question of Sunday opening. That was a matter not decided by the last Government, and it is not going to be decided by the present Government. There was a free vote of the House, and upon a matter of that kind we believe that the House of Commons is the best judge of what public opinion in this country desires.

Mr. Nally: That surely does not mean that the Government would not be prepared, if there seemed to be a legitimate case made out, to test this matter again in the future?

Mr. Molson: We have no reason to suppose that the decision reached freely upon a subject widely discussed throughout the country does not still represent the considered opinion of the country. The Government's point of view is that it desires public opinion upon a matter of this kind to be freely expressed, without coercion from any political party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) raised several points about unfair competition. It is certainly not our desire that there should be any unfair competition by the Festival Gardens with private enterprise. Among other matters which he raised was one regarding the importation of entertainments from the United States of America. I can only say that these are matters of detail which my right hon. Friend will be willing to consider with the greatest possible desire to ensure that there is no unfair competition between these Gardens and any other form of entertainment.
I have tried to deal with what I think are the main points that have been raised tonight—

Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point I put to him, about the position with regard to the main contract? I asked that we should be told what was the position, and whether or not any settlement had been arrived at.

Mr. Molson: The matter has been referred to arbitration and no decision has been come to. Provision is made in the figures which have been given to the Government on the assumption that it goes against the Company, and therefore the financial basis upon which this Bill is based is assuming the worst. We hope that things will turn out better than the basis on which we are calculating at the present time.
It is the desire of my right hon. Friend by continuing these Festival Gardens to bring to an end a controversy which has lasted for a considerable time; to ensure the best possible financial outcome in the interests of the country as a whole and to work in co-operation with the London County Council who are anxious to have an entertainment of this kind. And to do so while at the same time ensuring that there shall be no reasonable or unfair competition with private enterprise which has afforded the same kind of enjoyment to the people of this country. We hope and believe that in the next year or two it will be possible to give great enjoyment to our people, and at the same time afford some relief to the overburdened Exchequer of this country.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:

Committee to have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Eccles.]

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION (GRASSLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

2.13 a.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Although the hour is late, I think it is worth while having a short discussion on an agricultural topic, particularly as very little of the debate on the Gracious Speech was devoted to agricultural matters. It will give an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to make his maiden speech as a Minister, and we shall welcome his approach to the Despatch Box for the first time. I am particularly glad that he has been chosen by the Government as an English Minister to answer a Scottish Member, because the subject I wish to raise is a United Kingdom subject and not solely confined to Scotland.
The subject that has been put down for this debate is the better use of grass, but I do not want to discuss silage, electric fencing, methods of grazing, and that sort of thing tonight. I want to discuss how we can get more meat from the grass which is growing in all parts of our country.
Two things are clear. First, that the prospect of obtaining more high protein feedingstuffs from abroad at economic prices is pretty dim. Secondly, that we are producing less meat from more cattle than pre-war. I have quoted these figures before, but as this is a new Parliament perhaps they are worth quoting again. In June, 1939, we had 8,872,000 cattle, and in June, 1951, 10,473,000 cattle, but the amount of meat is less. The weekly average which in 1939 was 21,000 tons is now based on eight months of 1951 and is only 15,000 tons.
These figures are not completely comparable because we have to take into consideration the number of sheep and pigs. Sheep are down 6 million on 1939 and pigs 500,000. It is, I think, disturbing that although there has been a big increase in cattle the amount of meat we are getting from them is less. A further disturbing fact which has arisen from the September return is that even now cattle are also declining in addition


to the sheep and pigs. The problem I want to raise, therefore, is how to get more meat in this country for our own people from our own grass.
The traditional method of our farmers, particularly in Scotland, was to feed and fatten one lot of cattle on the grass in the autumn and to feed another lot of cattle in "courts" on high-protein feeding-stuffs, but neither of these methods are now economic. The first method is no longer economic because of the price structure of the Ministry of Food. The prices vary not only according to grade, but also according to the time of the year, from about 119s. to 132s. for the special grade. But nature provides that the cattle should be fattened in August, September and October at the lowest prices that the Ministry of Food picks. Thus fattening cattle according to nature has ceased to be economic.
As regards the latter method of fattening cattle in "courts" in the winter, that has become uneconomic owing to the high cost of high protein feedingstuffs, even if the farmer can get them at all. Incidentally, the prices of British cattle are rather interesting if compared with those of Canadian and American cattle. I have some figures which show that the Grade A price for British cattle per cwt. live weight was 109s. in November, 1951, but the same type of cattle on 13th October, 1951, was 257s. 6d. in Canada in Toronto, and 292s. 8d. in the U.S.A. in Chicago per live cwt. I do not think that the British farmer is being adequately remunerated compared with the U.S. and Canadian prices. What are my suggestions to deal with this situation?
The first suggestion I make is that we should alter the price structure of the Ministry of Food so that it becomes profitable once more to fatten cattle off the grass in July and October. What I want to see is two rises in the price structure during the year, one in the autumn to encourage the British farmer to fatten his cattle at the natural time of the year and use the maximum amount of British grass to do so; and that there should be the encouragement to do so by a rise in the price structure in the autumn. Then the price could come down and rise again in May at the time when those who wish to carry on court feeding could be encouraged to dispose of theirs.
But, as we must expect if we follow this policy, a very large number of cattle will be thrown on the market in the autumn. It is obviously necessary that there should be methods of disposing of them and keeping them for the time being. We all remember what happened last autumn when the 2s. 2d. meat ration came along for a few weeks. The butcher in very many cases was unable to dispose of the total amount of fresh meat allocated to him, and had in fact to waste good meat.
An essential further part of my suggestion is, therefore, that cold storage in this country should be stepped up to deal with the surplus, to keep it for such a period as would be necessary for the Ministry of Food not only to level out the meat rations throughout the autumn but also to leave a surplus which could be used for the next three or six months to keep up the meat supplies from home sources.
The third effect of my suggestion is that "court" feeding should be switched to wintering store cattle; in other words, instead of trying to go against nature by fattening cattle in the winter months with high protein feedingstuffs which do not exist, we should feed our store cattle in the winter on things like straw and turnips and silage which do not fatten but which will keep them alive until they can be put on the grass to fatten in the summer.
The fourth thing is that, in so far as farmers get feedingstuffs at all nowadays, those feedingstuffs should be diverted not only for maintaining milk production but for the feeding of more pigs and poultry. If we want more meat the biggest opportunity for increasing meat production quickly is in the production of more pigs.
I have spoken long enough, and it is very late at night, and I want to give time to the Minister to reply, and, therefore, I shall not elaborate my suggestion any more, but I will say this in conclusion, that farming is a business, and, like every business, must change in changing circumstances. What I suggest is a big change in what has been the habit of farmers ever since the beginning of the war, but it is one which, I believe, will keep the profitability of feeding cattle and fattening cattle for the British market, and would give the British people more and better home meat.

2.24 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I welcome the constructive suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). We all appreciate that today there is urgent consumer need for more meat. The chance of increasing the quantity available by increased imports is obviously not good. The supplies coming on the world market are tending to shrink, and our financial difficulties will obviously make it more difficult for us to get what is going. Any suggestion which will increase the production from home sources is worthy of careful consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is that since grass is the one product on our farms which is really in surplus, it could be converted into additional beef by fattening more cattle off that grass in the autumn. He believes that this will result it greater production of beef.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with his first premise that concentrated feedstuffs are in short supply. Indeed, in the light of our present financial difficulties it is going to take us all our time to maintain even the present level of supply. The position is not helped by the fact that there is a tendency for home grown cereals to decrease in quantity rather than increase. With the limited supplies available milk, pigs and poultry must have the first priority, and there cannot be much available for cattle except for calves.
I also agree with the premise that there is plenty of grass on farms, and there can be a great deal more if the modern technique of grass growing was more generally employed. A more generous use of fertilisers, the use of high grade herbage seeds and controlled management would all help in this matter.
It is true that this surplus grass could be turned into additional beef, but even the survey which my hon. and gallant Friend made showed some of the formidable difficulties that are involved. For instance, the grass fattened cattle would all come on for slaughtering in the autumn. At the present time the peak of our slaughtering is in the autumn, even though the present seasonal scale of prices is weighted against autumn production. In the four months, August, September, October and November of last year,

50 per cent. of the total killings were carried out. Any further increase in offerings of cattle during these months would cause a breakdown.
There are two major problems which would need to be solved to cope with any increased slaughtering of cattle in the autumn. The first is that more slaughter houses would need to be built. At the present time the peak slaughterings in the autumn can be managed by the existing slaughter houses. If there were any increase in slaughtering considerable additional slaughter house capacity would have to be built. At present the highest week's slaughtering in November is about five times as great as the lowest week's slaughtering in June. That means that for the greater part of the year the slaughter houses are under used, and the fact that they are not fully used for the greater part of the year adds something like one-third to the total cost of slaughtering.
The second point is that any substantial increase in home killed meat supplies in the autumn probably could not be taken up by the consumer. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is right there. By careful organisation the Ministry of Food has been able to hold off the supply of imported meat during the peak period, but any substantial increase in home-produced supplies then would therefore have to go into cold storage. At present there is not the plant available.
Our refrigeration arrangements are geared up to deal with the pre-war situation which was designed for limited periods of imported frozen meat, and our storage plant is adequate for preserving that by keeping it at a low temperature. But in order to freeze down carcases to start with, more powerful gear is needed, and it would be necessary to erect a substantial amount of cold storage to carry this carcase capacity, and expensive refrigeration plant as well.

Mr. Gerald Williams: My hon. Friend says it would be necessary to erect this plant. That is probably the gist of the whole argument. Is he prepared to do it?

Mr. Nugent: Having defined the problem confronting us, I was about to make such comment as I could offer. Of course, the building of these cold stores and the installation of suitable refrigeration plant


would be an expensive capital expenditure, but before I answer that there is a further point I ought to make. In the process of refrigeration the quality of the meat is considerably reduced, and in fact the home-produced frozen meat would probably be of a lower quality than the imported frozen meat.

Captain Duncan: My suggestion was not to build new cold storage capacity, but to step up the power of the existing refrigerating plant, which would not be so expensive, as my hon. Friend was saying.

Mr. Nugent: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend is not right in his premise. First of all, there is no spare cold storage space available. A rather different kind of cold storage space is required for the purpose of storage over a number of months. Existing storage space is designed for a short period of weeks. The carcases are hung close together. Such capacity as we have is fully employed at certain times in storing imported meat. Considerable additional capacity would be required and the refrigerating plant would need to be something completely different to anything we have at present in order to freeze down the carcases.
The solution to these problems depends on fairly heavy capital expenditure, and in the present circumstances, in competition with the re-armament programme, I am afraid they are bound to have fairly low priority. In the meantime, it is obviously impossible to move on the lines suggested until policy has been decided on this point, and provision made to meet these two fundamental problems.
In general terms, I agree that there should be further encouragement for the production of quality beef, and in this connection my hon. and gallant Friend may have seen the Ministry of Food Press Notice published last week. If it is possible, we will go further than that.
The seasonal price scales are worked out in discussion with the N.F.Us. of

England, Scotland and Northern Ireland after each price review, and we will see if it is possible to make a greater differentiation for quality. The present price scale is intentionally weighted, to give some incentive to yard fattening in recognition of the considerably heavier costs involved. Some yard fattening will be done in any event. I agree there is very little profit, if any, in it, but the main benefit is the dung which helps to restore and build-up the fertility of the farm. On a number of farms, such feeding-stuffs as sugar-beet pulp, which would not leave the farms, can be, and is, used for fattening cattle. I believe it is possible that some additional fattening could be done by the greater use of the conservation of grass by making silage and dried grass. It is used to some extent now. If it can be used to a greater extent, my hon. and gallant Friend and I would be completely together. The surplus grass would then be employed for fattening in the slack period. One cannot fatten all animals with silage and dried grass, but even those which are not completely fattened would be fairly near it by the time they were turned out. It would be only a matter of a couple of months before the fattening was finished. They would come in the trough period of production and would help out in the short period of meat supply.
I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I are deeply concerned about the whole problem of getting greater meat production and, indeed, increasing, if we can, all farm production. At present we are considering in the Department the targets of production in all fields, and I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that the points he has raised will be given very careful consideration in this review. I thank him for raising the matter.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes to Three o'Clock a.m.